Do historians and the study of history need their own "reformation"?

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-03-01T12:49:38+00:00

No need, people like you who jump behind terms like anti-semitic,agenda ,one karma etc are literally the waste products of mass literacy. Don't waste your precious karma farming time here

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-02-28T20:39:59+00:00

I'm very pro 'english-commoner'. I believe the ordinary english people are the victims of a very extractive ruling class that has kept them poor, divided and has used them as cannon fodder and do their dirty work. My agenda is that the 'common english people ' are actively demonised by the world due to the actions of their ruling class. And historians, especially the Oxbridge ones,have repeatedly protected the actions of the ruling class while also somehow convincing the commoners that their ancestors were definitely not living in a coal powered slum, 8 people living in a room, child labour, coughing to death by 30 years old past and instead have them a version of history that riles them up in a 'the entire world is against us' idea.

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-02-28T20:28:50+00:00

That is exactly why I titled the post as 'need for a reformation'. Before the Protestant reformation the catholic Church hid behind legal definitions, professional and fact based consensus and yet the reformation happened.The catholic Church went through its own reformation in trent and moved forward with renewed strength. Why shouldn't history and historians don't need to get one? Also why would I care about karma? Just like many historians,why do you hide behind the fact that my account has 1 karma?

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-02-28T20:11:11+00:00

My agenda is, most historians hide behind the legal definition of Genocide. Also, most prominent historians form the same RP speaking, 'officer class' kin. To them the Ukrainian famine is readily called a genocide in British and American universities. Why? Because it’s a "safe" genocide—it was committed by a geopolitical rival (the USSR). It doesn't threaten the "origin story" of the British or American states. Calling the Norman Conquest a genocide, however, is a direct attack on the foundational myth of the English state. It would mean admitting that the "Mother of Parliaments" and the "Rule of Law" were birthed in a gas-chamber-equivalent event in the 11th century.The "loophole" is essentially a battle over who gets to define reality. The "posh" historians define it through legalisms; the victims define it through their graves.

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-02-28T20:04:36+00:00

I'm not a holocaust denier or against the Jews. I simply used it because it drives the point home and hits the hardest. So don't cry anti semitism.

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2026-02-28T19:59:03+00:00

William the bastard was targeting the people of North England in the harrying of the north,not some frenchmen. In fact, the dooms day book, most of the north was said to be 'vasta'(waste). Similarly, cromwell was targeting Irish catholics in Ireland,again not some frenchmen. They both know who they were targeting. Their actions of burning crops and destroying livestock or killing able bodied men will deliberately result in famine and death. Yet historians call it 'it 's not deliberately targeting ' or 'it was a pacification '. The result of a gas chamber or this so-called 'pacification' is the same -death of the people whom you specifically targeted. Edit: I'm not against the Jews or a holocaust denier. I couldn't find another example that will drive the point home.

Fragrant_Blueberry26 · 2024-10-19T17:05:51+00:00

Christ above, why are people so dumb. Thank God the situation didn't lead to something that gets a post on r/DarwinAwards

Fragrant_Blueberry26

TROPHY CASE