I look at the Wikipedia article on Pseudohistory and it still makes little sense to me. The article is anti-revisionist and anti-intellectual and pseudo-intellectualism at its finest. How is it pseudo-scholarship?
It is silence the very field of history with its “sensational claims” and thesis which is controversial. Is this an article on how to write a thesis? A thesis which is controversial. What thesis? There are many controversial theses on history, which is just another way at looking at it.
It also says that any theory that is controversial, which is complete bull, especially on controversial topics like Bosnia, where evidence is being found that atrocities were committed against Serbs and everyone practiced ethnic cleansing, which based on the evidence I’ve gathered, makes the most sense.
But the pro-Muslim crowd, might silence it as pseudohistory because they do not want their innocent victims narrative being contested, which it isn’t true, because they cleansed villages near Srebrenica, and other unspeakable atrocities. I could go on about it.
controversial theories about historical events, like Amelia Earhart for example, are widely discussed throughout academia, because no one really knows what happened to her in 1937. Wikipedia argues all controversial theories, which might help solve mysteries about the event, are pseudohistory.
This is a bunch of anti-intellectual bullshit! It silences the very field of historiography because it is about revising history and correcting it based on evidence and proper sources of evidence.
The great Balkans pissing contest will go on!
This includes controversial theories and senstational claims about historical events. Without sensational claims, we cannot solve controversial historical events.
Pseudohistory is not pseudoscience. The flimsiest reason they give for pseudohistory being like pseudoscience is lack of evidence. Hello! Pseudoscience is not about evidence, it’s about improper and failed methods of science, based on the flimsiest of research.
The pseudoscience analogy is wrong, because science is all about a singular interpretation based on evidence, history has many schools of thought and interpretations based on historical evidence, unlike science. This analogy is wrong. There are many schools of interpretation on history. Marxist, traditional, revisionist, Christian, Islamic, etc. Science has no such thing.
The article is flimsy and poorly-written, like the Nazi-occultism article, which only talks about conspiracy theorists, but says absolutely nothing about Heinrich Himmler’s fascination, dabbling in the occult, which is well-documented.
Wikipedia makes little sense. It’s not genocide denial to criticize Bosnia because there is evidence out detailing in graphic detail about atrocities against Serbs. There is evidence of the Muslim ties with Iran, according to a Senate 1997 report about Iranian arms shipments. When’s the world gonna admit that atrocities were committed on all sides? (Serb, Bosnian Muslim, and Croat)
The healing will begin once everyone admits that all sides engaged in wrong-doing. The world must know about anti-Serb atrocities in Bosnia.
I’m not saying Serbs or Croats are right either. No one is right here. Everyone here has blood on their hands. That is a documented fact, and no amount of name-calling, “genocide denier” can change that.
Atrocities happened on all sides in Bosnia.
I do not like the Balkans pissing contest on the internet. I reccomend Media Cleansing, Dirty Reporting by Peter Brock, one of the most accurate on the subject, and John R. Schindler Bosnia, Al Qaida, Jihad book.
Everyone is in denial here. I believe that the war in Bosnia is disgusting and evil, these 3 fascist dickheads that fought the war on the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim sides/factions are the most disgusting, evil, and vicious people on the face of the earth. The amount of name-calling by all these people, Serb, Croat, etc is not changing anything. The dickheads will never stop.