Where do I start, lol

The analysis and study of history is pretty marxist. Like extremely marxist. When I was first introduced to the field, quotes by Marx were everywhere. Quotes about dialectics and historical materialism sprinkled into books about the recording of history, in books about writing scholarly articles, etc etc. But just about every historian I’ve interacted with (I’m from the US) does not seem to recognize this fact about the field of history. One example of this is was in March, where the Russo-Ukraine war got more intense. My history professor spouted propaganda upon propaganda, saying that Putin was similar to Hitler, all that kind of shit. While he was the one that told me that one of the worst things a historian could do was make comparisons between different historical events and people. It’s almost as if a lot of historians only apply this dialectical analysis when they’re writing something. And even then, a lot of history books have ignored this idea of definite proof of something happening in favor of spreading propaganda. One book I read for class was made to write a book review on, had a section where a NC politician was supposedly given a letter by Stalin. However it was signed by “Joe S.” In my review i criticized the book for this, stating that there was no proof of this letter existing other than a citation that it was from a library that wasn’t available to the public. I questioned the purpose of this letter being inserted into the chapter, stating that it could be used by the far right as evidence that a liberal who was moderate on giving Black Americans basic human rights was a communist. My professor gave me less points for that, stating that I was “focusing on the details” and that the criticism wasn’t necessary.

TLDR; a lot of historians ignore the philosophy of studying history in favor of lazy analysis and hyping shit up for entertainment rather than being truthful.