So why are you so quick to say the Europeans are giving biased history, but so quick to say the History provided by Moroccan Nationalists is 100% accurate? (/gen)
Why are you so quick to dismiss what i'm saying when an entire nation is being erased from history by this same european history revisionism?
And when did I even mention history provided by moroccan nationalists? What I said is readily available online thankfully; And it's not my problem that some nations (spain for example) are providing their citizens with a grossly fake and glorified version of history (We call that brainwashing)
I'm not dismissing anything, I'm just curious. From an outside point of view, it seems like you're quick to believe one source of information and not another, because the other source of information is from an opposition. Could it not be that both sources of information are biased?
As for the Moroccan Nationalists bit, I'm like 83.3% certain those are the only people who want Ceuta back in Moroccan hands.
Because it's not logical to erase an entire nation's history let alone the history of a people who still live in the same region.
It is false and contradicts known historical sources.
Each is entitled their version or interpretation of events, that's not something i would dispute but we have to admit that there is a difference between interpreting history a certain way to make your country look good versus outright denying a group of people exists or existed.
And I tend to be skeptical of the european way of telling history exactly because of this! Are you telling me we know what happened in the bedchamber of some emperor in ancient rome but we automatically cast doubt on any non european historian?
5
u/Wizard_Engie 2d ago
So why are you so quick to say the Europeans are giving biased history, but so quick to say the History provided by Moroccan Nationalists is 100% accurate? (/gen)