Historians are "trite/hackneyed"? No. As far as what parents do
   with their kids? That's another issue. If there are human rights
   abuses taking place within families, they should be addressed. I
   suppose it is because I was never force-fed anything. Plus, I
   have other banners to walk behind which have more to do with
   human civility. Now, I consider myself agnostic. It is the
   safest label I'm willing to place upon myself at present and
   accept begrudgingly as *something* for people who need to sort
   other people by such labels. Will I argue for agnosticism? No.
   It's not that important to me. I have other battles. If you see
   human rights abuses, they should be addressed. But one of my
   causes, i suppose, is accuracy in historical narrative. At first
   glance, the presentation as I saw it above (speed read and a
   skim because I've been rather occupied this morning inbetween
   posts), did not seem to be an accurate reading of history to me
   compared to that of historians and my own research. I could be
   wrong. Maybe it's accurate. Maybe it's well done. But it seemed
   convoluted and designed to convince rather than an objective
   portrayal of history. Impressions can be misleading, but I
   always watch for bias in storytelling. An obvious bias is a red
   flag for caution.