Ok. I'll again refer you to where I literally never said victors never write history. Cool, Mao did. Where did I say otherwise? Point this out to me.

Harry Potter isn't an example of the victors writing history. I don't know what you're smoking to have a take like that. It's a kid's book about child wizards standing against dark wizards who want ethnic purity (i.e. a superior race of wizards untainted by non-magic blood).

It's not a historical record or analysis. It's a kid's book series.

What "victors" wrote it? Where's the writing of history? I see you've backed down from your "and it was published by the Colonial-era British government!" take, so at least we're making some progress.

The folks most able to write history are the ones in the position to conduct research, formulate a narrative, and distribute it most aggressively. Those people are inevitably working on behalf of the most wealthy and influential business and political interests in the region.

Yes! Good boy! You're getting it!! Well done ❤️❤️❤️❤️!

It's just like I said all along - history is written by those most able to record it!

Aka "the victors".

You got so close, only to throw out your previous sentences and go back to this baseless take that has loads of counter-examples, some of which I've already stated.

The victors are usually in a better position to write about events, but it's not a rule. Jesus, how is this hard to understand? The world isn't black and white where everything is absolute.

Most of the writings about Genghis Khan and other Mongolian emperors during their golden era comes from Chinese historians. Tell me, were China the victors in their encounters with the Mongols? Because by your logic, they must have been.