Most upvoted comment
Many Russian historians do not except the widespread rape of German women by the Red army, despite western consensus . Many Turkish historians do not accept the Armenian genocide happened, despite western consensus. What events do western historians not accept – despite non-western consensus?(r/AskHistorians)
Consider the massacre at Wounded Knee, December 29, 1890. There is no argument that men, women, and children were slaughtered that day cruelly.
At the time, there were medals of honor given to many of the men who fought there:
As time went on, a popular poet, Stephen Vincent Benets, mentioned Wounded Knee in his popular poem “American Names” in 1927:
The phrase from this poem was used by Dee Brown in the title of his excellent, ground breaking, and culture shifting work, “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee” in 1970:
What is notable in regards to your question above, is that this work is extremely critical of the American Government’s behavior towards Native Americans, yet remains almost required reading in many American High Schools.
However, it remains that those medals of honor still stand. But there are recent rumblings to have those medals rescinded:
So it is a shifting, evolving truth.
Western nations tend to have greater commitments to free speech, official censorship channels do not have the same power here as in other countries like Russia and Turkey. Therefore, there isn’t a “Western historians do not accept” type situation as you suggest because a truly critical eye can dominate in the academia of the West over official pronouncements on sensitive topics. While elsewhere, official pronouncements cannot be criticized without fear of punishment or censure.
This doesn’t mean the West has fully addressed past national crimes, it just means critical speech and dissent is more tolerated than in other nations on sensitive topics, generally speaking.
Edited for grammar