The problem with the study of history is that it is most often a subtle means of trying to get people outraged about something or other. It pretends to be "academic", but most often is hiding the evils of the side they like, and exaggerating the virtues of the side they like. [There is almost always some agenda.]
I encounter this often in conversations with people that have heard only one side of some events. Often I have no opinion one way or the other, but what surprises me is the fact that when people have heard abundant "facts" on one side of things. So history is the art of getting people to elevate a regrettable and sad occurrence into an outrage.
[I could give examples but, I am sure you can provide plenty on your own from your own experience. It is not that being outraged is "off." Rather that one ought to be extra careful about what to be outraged about=-and to make doubly sure to look into all the facts.]
[I like to learn history. But I tend to try to do so as thoroughly as I can, and go to original sources as much as possible. Either do it right, or do not do it at all.]
