Why most of modern historians are leftists?

Fuck, really?

What bill was this?

I couldn't find the exact bill, but I did find a quite by FDR who commented on the anti-lynching movement in the thirties. “If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass the keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take the risk.”

That's some pretty fucked up shit. I realize it was over a century ago but I still find it hard to believe you'd actually need and have an anti-lynching movement.

*almost a century ago

Because historians are willing to ignore the tens of millions killed under communism as long as the ideology had "good intentions" unlike the nazis I guess

Because the political right has been hijacked by capitalism and judged by a capitalist metric of economic success they're not producing anything of value.

Looking at it in hindsight, if you're not a /pol/tard, it is pretty fucked up that being against black people getting murdered by a mob was contraversial. I hate to say it, but FDR does have a point. He can't afford to divide the support of his country in the midst of a depression. It is a fucked idea that a politician is apathetic to lynchings today no doubt. But back then, people were just that much more racist.

American academia is leftist as fuck. It's especially annoying with the Oxford History of the United States series. The newest one covers one of my favorite periods of history (the Gilded Age) and the entire book is one giant polemic about how evil big business and capitalists are written by a guy who wrote about 19th century railroads where he spent the entire book going on about how evil the railroad companies were.

Empire of Liberty is about the only totally unbiased post-Revolution American history book I've ever read.

>totally unbiased
...

FDR was the GOAT PRESIDENT

prove me wrong

there are a whole lot of books about the holodmor, stalin's purges, the great leap forward, the killing fields in cambodia, etc. etc.
Maybe you should stop going through Maoist bookstores and engage with reality

I don't understand you're upset because a book written about a period in US history notable for abuses by capital is filled with historical accounts of abuses by capital?

Conservashits are skeptics of anything that doesn’t conform to their deluded any Rand simpleton view of capitalism and the world. That’s why the religious indoctrinated and uneducated Inbreds love voting republican

because leftism won the day after WW2, with popular politics being pretty much entirely based off of post French Revolutionary thought.
though desu the history department is one of the few places youll find outright reactionaries or conservatives in academia, so this is a meme.
hes both beloved for swinging the nation to the left somewhat and criticized for not going far enough. socially thanks to his dependence on the southern dems
it is a fucking shame Zhou had to spend his life cleaning up the fucking autism Mao caused, him and Deng were the based leaders of commie China

>this one books series is evidence that ALL academia is leftist
kys

>totally unbiased
>espouses what i believe
you are truly clueless.

Lincoln exists.

Was he America's Perón?

Conservative here.
In my country, anything in the humanities has the reputation of being "out of reality commies who will fail you if you are to the right of Che Guevara" and "weed smokers everywhere".

So, I, who liked the Classics, History, etc preferred to go to another area and have this as a hobby.

Because useless people are drawn to useless professions.

You realize Empire of Liberty is part of the Oxford Series?

I would say WW2 and recovering from the Great Depression posed bigger threat to the existence of the USA than the civil war.

>this meme

>it is a fucking shame Zhou had to spend his life cleaning up the fucking autism Mao caused
Nigga he was Mao's right hand man. Its a bizarre fanfiction tier idea to think that Mao and Zhou was somehow equivalent to Stalin/Trotsky or Mao/Deng. The guy was a major insider who benefited under Maos plans, helped to execute them in the way that they were. He was about a big of a moderator for Mao as Biden was for Obama. Liu Shaoqi is the man you want to look for in Chinese history for "What if?" situations, not Mao's right hand.

>Conveniently forgetting his Japanese concentration camps and court packing.

>Age literally named and defined by corporate misdeeds
>why are they writing about corporate misdeeds???

I thought you were going to provide examples of negatives?

>I still find it hard to believe you'd actually need and have an anti-lynching movement.
Values were different then. Folks cared more about the safety the communities than they cared about how racism was unjust, for better or for worse.

You see, this is the part where the conservative replies that the leftists are unprincipled, hedonistic, niggers and hippies that just want their free shit.
Attacking a political base over there policies themselves is a stupid thing to do.

Really?

zhou was one of the last few gifts china was ever given along with sun yatsen and deng.

>Ayn Rand
>conservative
Rangeban for the US when?

Lynching wasn't only something that happened to black people. It was basically a form of frontier justice.

Ssshhhhh he's a Yankee which means every case was basically Emmett Till's murder.

>Historians ignore communist atrociti-

I wouldn't say that historians are necessarily leftist, but it's clear that historians have a favorable bias towards a strong, expanding central state. Maybe because such a state usually employs historians and other assorted intellectuals as bureaucrats.

Since in the United States only the left supports a strong central state, most historians are leftist, but in countries with a tradition of statist right, such as in France, Germany, Japan and Russia, it's not so unusual to find a conservative historian.

>leftist academics are leftist as fuck
>brings up le evil railroad as evidence as if that wasnt a theme in almost every western movie ever made and not the gods honest truth

t. gets mad when he gets called a national socialist when he's actually a falangist

>Why most of modern historians are leftists?

They're not. You're confusing liberals using British historiography with Marxists.

The Marxist content of Thompsons work is readily divorced from his emphasis on culture in materially reproductive context.

Yeah, modern US historiography is a joke, especially since verdicts respecting past events are so consequential even today.
You cannot find a fairly written modern book about
>anything related to the civil war
>anything related to the new deal
>anything related to colonial land acquisition

Wtf I love FDR now!