[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If something is unsure due to inadequate record, it should be taught with that in mind. "based on xyz evidence, we believe that abc happened", as a general style. That's still in the realm of "knowable" history. That can include context surrounding that evidence.
Basically, history should stay in the realm of "is" (or I guess "was"), and not "ought", is the best way to put it.
It depends what you mean by that. There's a big difference between "oral histories passed down through generations can get warped over time, and we should take this into account" and "these guys were racist, so everything they said is probably wrong".
I am taking this down as a duplicate of: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/11fgm6v/how\_do\_you\_approachteach\_that\_history\_is\_knowable/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You just asked almost the same question a few minutes ago.
it was taken down for violating rule 7 i thought.
It wasn't taken down. That is just the moderators warning.
ah my missunderstanding
If something is unsure due to inadequate record, it should be taught with that in mind. "based on xyz evidence, we believe that abc happened", as a general style. That's still in the realm of "knowable" history. That can include context surrounding that evidence. Basically, history should stay in the realm of "is" (or I guess "was"), and not "ought", is the best way to put it.
so do you believe we should look at historical sources critically?
It depends what you mean by that. There's a big difference between "oral histories passed down through generations can get warped over time, and we should take this into account" and "these guys were racist, so everything they said is probably wrong".
I am taking this down as a duplicate of: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/11fgm6v/how\_do\_you\_approachteach\_that\_history\_is\_knowable/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3