I have read historically accurate accounts, though you define historical accuracy by it not being written by anyone succeeding. I’ve also asked for sources, and you haven’t brought any beyond linking the anarchist library.
Yes but they started their sentences with “more historical inaccuracies” and “more fan-fiction” for the fifth time now and surely that counts for something.
Surely none of the losers of history have ever lost for good reason and stayed mad about it. Let’s all renounce modern medicine and pledge loyalty to the Khmer Rouge, because they too were crushed by the awful communists.
Nah, history is written by both winners and losers. What’s important is historical accuracy, and which class’s perspective and outlook is being presented. Equating socialist historiography with bourgeois historiography is a false equivalence.
I have read historically accurate accounts, though you define historical accuracy by it not being written by anyone succeeding. I’ve also asked for sources, and you haven’t brought any beyond linking the anarchist library.
History written by the winners is ok according to you as long as you agree with it. That is really funny.
You still haven’t provided any sources
Yes but they started their sentences with “more historical inaccuracies” and “more fan-fiction” for the fifth time now and surely that counts for something.
Surely none of the losers of history have ever lost for good reason and stayed mad about it. Let’s all renounce modern medicine and pledge loyalty to the Khmer Rouge, because they too were crushed by the awful communists.
Nah, history is written by both winners and losers. What’s important is historical accuracy, and which class’s perspective and outlook is being presented. Equating socialist historiography with bourgeois historiography is a false equivalence.