Contemporeaneous knowledge is NEVER superior to the
collective wisdom and judgment of the past. I don't have
the time to go into the epistomology of history but you
could be in-country for eight years and not have the
slightest notion of why or toward what purpose -- other
than anecdotal knowledge which is not the essence of
historiography. Or, you could take the even easier way
out (the Hillary exit) and ascribe it all to a vast left
wing conspiracy.
You left out firsthand. In any event, the "collective wisdom and judgment of the past" must be based on something, i.e., the facts. You seem to believe that historians all agree on the "facts" and reach the same conclusions. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth torpedoed the Kerry campaign by demonstrating that historian David Brinkley's account of what Kerry did in Vietnam was false. How did they do that? By providing firsthand, contemperaneous accounts of what happened almost 30 years ago along with documents.
The current prevailing conventional wisdom on Vietnam is not necessarily the truth. Read the Boston Manifesto and get a different perspective on what happened based on firsthand accounts and objective facts. Frankly, it is too early, just 30 years after the event, to write a truly objective account of Vietnam and what its historical impact was. Many who write the history of the Vietnam War have a political agenda, which is reflected in their writings.
Douglas Brinkley vice David Brinkley