4 ms·

No, our understanding of history has not fundamentally changed constantly. This is categorically false.

• archagon 3y ago
  It's quite clear that you've never actually studied history.
• wolverine876 3y ago
  Talk to a historian. I think there's an Ask an Historian subreddit, where you'll get excellent, nuanced, reasonable perspective from actual historians.
• defrost 3y ago
  Do you need a link to actual historians discussing the breadth of historian opinion on particular topics and the evolution of thought over time on interpretation of historical events? Such things are commonplace and easy to find.
  • kardianos 3y ago
    You'all are responding like a 100 token LLM. The context is, "is an activist method" necessary, or could the existing objective viewpoint take into account a fuller understanding of history over time. So yes. Of course we gain a better understanding of history. Does that require activist methods? Throwing out old methods? Is the change fundamental to methodology? No. This is a real paper published by the University of Oregon under these new activist "methods". I present "Feminist Glacier Studies". It adds nothing of value and if anything, reduces the net value of the field. This is what a non-objectivity lens does to the field of knowledge. It destroys it. History is the same way. And no, Joan de Arc was not trans. https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2022/08/Carey-et-al.-2016.pdf https://courses.ecology.uga.edu/ecol8000-materials/wp-conten...
• thereticent 3y ago
  I'm sorry if this sounds personal--it's not. But your stated view is again naive.