Ideologically is what flavor the facts and context the history writer will admitted and emitted or even bother to write about in the first place for a historical dialog...
All history will have some degree of ideologically taint, ever at our best there a limitation of human perspective ....
But when is becomes deliberately gross intellectually dishonest, it moves in to propaganda...read Zinn & Chomsky to see on display at it vulgar best
Deliberately out of context "facts" are tactical requirement for leftist history
You can say that again, though this exists sometimes on the other side somewhat.
I should have posted this before:
Historian and author John Fea of Messiah College states that,
“Zinn writes well and is quite inspiring, but his book is bad history. In fact, I would not even call it history. A People’s History of the United States is a political tract that uses the past to promote a presentist agenda...Zinn’s book violates virtually every rule of good historical thinking.”
Michael Kazin, Professor in the Department of History at Georgetown University states that,
“A People’s History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable”, whose failure to adequately explain why most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic “is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger’s Web site than to a work of scholarship.”
http://conservapedia.com/Howard_Zinn