Rachel wrote:
I'm not saying not to question history, but not being able to trust history is part of the opposition's tactics.
an interesting idea.
rephrased to referring to any other Big Narrative we, seasoned Fakeologists should be very cautious with, it would become quite comical
"I'm not saying not to question 9/11 planes morphing into buildings, but not being able to trust 9/11 planes morphing into buildings is part of the opposition's tactics."
"I'm not saying not to question NASA et al., but not being able to trust NASA et al. is part of the opposition's tactics."
"I'm not saying not to question Germ Theory for Viruses , but not being able to trust Germ Theory for Viruses is part of the opposition's tactics."
etc. etc.
I almost know (presume with high confidence) that you don't mean to say it like this, but I cannot unsee the parallels.
So the question comes up;
what do you mean by "history" ?
Does it refer to
Chronology - do you trust the currently widely accepted time placements of historical events?
Historical cause and effect - do you trust that historical events took place for the causes presented, leading to the effects presented?
An overall, more detached feel about human history - do you trust the general historical patterns that have been drawn for us by the historiographers?
on the 1st point, as PotatoFieldsForever alluded to, I am and stay impressed by the enormous task that Soviet-Ukrainian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko has taken on. Since getting to know about him, from the Bulgarian lady, Silvia is her name I think, running the newearth channel on YouTube, I like his approach, taking the right, globally observable phenomena, like celestial, Gaia-related and other phenomena.
It makes me highly suspicious of especially the times (chronology, (non)veracity of historical figures, overal history with "Rome" being so-called modern and advanced and suddenly Europe "forgot how to live normally for 1000 years") before the Renaissance, I coined as Prenaissance.
For those for whom a 1052 year "leftover time" in history is too much, other researchers, like German Herman Illig, have proposed shorter but equally exaggerated chronologies, rejecting the existence of famous Charles the Great, the alleged first Holy Roman Emperor as a single historical figure, proposing an amalgamation of several historical characters in one, created one...
The 2nd point, we as Fakeologists, we CAN only be highly suspicious of, simply because we reject those cause and effect narratives given to us now:
like "the US Military Industrial Complex invaded and occupied and regime changed Afghanistan and Iraq
because of tewwowists"
so it would not make sense that in historical times this principle would be invalid.
And if someone proposes such idea, my question is "when did they go from real history to fake history then, what moment or what division defines that?"
The 3rd point is my own focus. I try to approach history as holistic as possible, trying to imagine how and with what people lived in a certain place and a certain time (focusing on post-Prenaissance or the placement of a historical situation irrespective of when that actually was according to mainstream (Scallagher) chronology).
I am interested how you, and also others, approach this set of historical questions.