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.

I don’t know historian beefs, but in University I’ve heard choice cuts like El Sistema is a Venezualan plot to first indoctrinate Venezualan children into authoritarianism with conductors and playing music together and BeEtHoVeN, then once that is accomplished export the revolution to underfunded US school districts where they will be indoctrinated into Stalinist–Madurist authoritarianism and developed into a fifth column that will bring Venezualan imperialism to US soil. And as a side note those filfthy poors shouldn’t be taught to play music anyway because the more people that play music aesthetically devalues the entire concept of music itself and the logical extension would be to have the entire concept of listening and playing music reserved exclusively for the graduates of Juilliard or something. Instrument building was also brought into this and it was suggested that the industrial production of instruments was bad specifically, explicitly, because it made them cheaper and available to more people (they’re usually still really fucking expensive anyway). I don’t know how you can be a professor of musicology and have literally no understanding of how culture works and that it will emerge from any human population within the material parameters that they exist in. I think this man also considered himself Marxist, or at the very least an anti-capitalist.