This used to be one of my favourite phrases, until I realised that, actually, it is written by the one side that has better PR/marketing. It is mostly, but not always, the same as the winners.

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 weeks ago

History is rewriten again and again in realtime by a million "public relations" and "news" organizations.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Look at how the US often approaches things like the Confederacy. Especially with Texas controlling many of the books.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The winners

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What did they win?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

History

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, so why do I know about how bad the "winners" are?

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because there's some dedicated Marxists that shine light on it with historical materialist analysis trying to fight the winners hegemonic Interpretation of history (the west are the winners and the baddies)

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Ironically imperialist, but yes I wasn't actually asking why there are histories critical of settler-colonialism and capitalist hegemony.