Objective History Doesn’t Exist

The historical profession has a tendency to hide behind a supposed veil of objectivity.

Kind of like Yankees have a treasury of virtue.

Establishment hacks believe that a publication with a university press–“peer reviewed”–gives them a badge of trust. You see, these people believe this validates their work.

Except it just means that they sent it to a few people in the field and asked them to give some suggestions on the merits of the work. Most of them don’t know much about the subject and don’t take the time to read it carefully, and those that do and provide critical commentary, particularly if that commentary destroys the work in question, are ignored.

And trust me, most professional historians aren’t worth the title. I remember several who attended graduate school at USC, many of whom are now tenured professors, being absolutely worthless when it came to primary (and sometimes secondary) research.

History books written by these dopes often include unsubstantiated commentary, meaning we get to read polemics based on their own opinions of the subject.

It can be subtle, for example using the term “enslaved” instead of “slaves,” or a description of the Confederacy as a “government established to maintain white supremacy” as a description of the C.S.A.

I’ll review one of these books in the next week or so, but this problem isn’t new.

In fact, history has always been biased. The problem is that most people don’t know this, and current woke fools think that this is a recent development by “white supremacists” while ignoring their own biases.

I discuss one of the best books on the subject on Episode 603 of The Brion McClanahan Show.