Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Historical Revisionism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Historical Revisionism
    Posted: 27-May-2010 at 14:42
First of all, Nurica!

While I can read simple French sentences, when one becomes entangled in scientific, and other complicated terms, my translation becomes "trash!", and so it is with any attempt by myself to translate your post above!

Certainly the words of the noted Swiss journalist, are beyond me!

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Cornu&ei=GuT-S-W_BML_lgfC7NG9CQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDaniel%2BCornu%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_enUS315US315%26prmd%3Db

And, I wonder just what information he related that could consider "historical revisionism", I cannot fathom, I would ask that you give us a translation, since this is mostly an English only site?

Re.; the post of DreamWeaver (which I will from now on, refer to as DW!): Who wrote above;

"Yes but one can not stray too far from facts Opusola."

First of all, DW, I sign all of my posts with my real name and not a pseudonym! The name, if you please, is Ron!

As regards the quote above, I can only say that a lot of what people today refer to as "fact(s)!", especially as regards "historical facts!", are only presumed to be facts!

You may not think it as "cool", but I do so think! That is the real reason that "history" can never be thought of as a "science!", I repeat "NEVER!"

Why, because there exists no real "Proof!" or series of "Proofs!", as a real science requires! There are no "repeated tests of fact!"

All there is, is a consensus of approval!, or as a politican might say, "majority rule!"

I could go on, but I would probably only piss you off more and more!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2010 at 15:07
As has already been stated one cant get very far declaring that Belgium invaded Germany in 1914.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2010 at 15:33
DW, you might well notice some small difference between 1,200 BCE, or 350BCE, or 1200 CE, and the 20th century CE?

Can you not?

Funny, in 1900 CE, or so, we had things like; the printing press; the "Press" itself; books; photographs!, etc.! I.e. hundreds of thousands or millions of accounts of these events from all sides!

So, I would be a fool to make a comparison between WWI (1914 CE), and ancient Egypt! But, under the conditions we are now supposed to consider, I have to feel that events supposedly from about 2,000 years or even 1,350 years before the original event, are not supported by anything but supposition!

Give me one "supported fact"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/support



Edited by opuslola - 27-May-2010 at 15:42
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10110
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 07:24
I found this the other day while rummaging in the Archives.  I did not write any of this.  It's a post put up by a former Admin. Komnenos.
 
 
How to become a revisionist historian in two easy steps:
 
1. Take one universally accepted, well researched and documented historical phenomenon, go to the pub, and after a couple of drinks come up with a theory that claims the exact opposite to everyone else's view.
Spend a couple of hours googling and dig out some other poor soul's claims that, with some fanciful interpretation, might support your claims, the more fantastic, the better. (Amateurish attempts on  etymology and slightly racist undertones are optional at this stage.) Find some internet forum to post your claims.
2. Denounce all evidence  that might contradict your new theory as either erroneous or as deliberately falsified, preferably by some sinister global conspiracy. Portray yourself as victim of such conspiracy, especially when you're just about to be banned from said forum. Move on to the next forum.
 
.WinkBig smileEvil Smile
 
 
 
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 17:27
Dear Red Clay,

Komnenos was obviously a wise administrator? By the way, what ever became of him?

Did he teach you all you now know about being an Administrator?

Possibly he taught you all you know about it, but obviously he did not teach you all that he knows about being an administrator!

Thanks for the wink! I recognize that you were just jesting!    As am I!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 18:24
Originally posted by red clay

I found this the other day while rummaging in the Archives.  I did not write any of this.  It's a post put up by a former Admin. Komnenos.
 
 
How to become a revisionist historian in two easy steps:
 
1. Take one universally accepted, well researched and documented historical phenomenon, go to the pub, and after a couple of drinks come up with a theory that claims the exact opposite to everyone else's view....
 
Perhaps there should be another term (I just created it now):
 
Historical revisiting:  historical revisiting is a gentler form of revisionism.  Core historical events are not questioned, but the common historical version is not accepted verbatim either.  For example:
 
Common Historical Version:  Europeans forcibly captured and brought millions of african slaves to the new world.
 
Indisputed facts:  The slave trade invovled vast human suffering
 
Historical revisiting:  Europeans captured very few Africans.  The vast, overwhelimg magority of slaves were purchased from African Kingdoms.  Africans (epecially the powerful Ashanti Kingdom) were equal partners in the slave trade.  The slave trade could not of existed on a large scale without the willing participation of dominant African tribes.
 
And the U.S. civil war:
 
Common Historical Version:  Enlightned Union troops fought to liberate slaves. 
 
Indisputed Fact: Slavery was permitted in the Confederacy
 
Historical Revisiting:  Emancipation of the slaves was not initially a war goal of the Union.  Some Unon states also allowed slavery.  Other "enlightned" Union states had banned black settlement.  Free southeren blacks (and a few slaves) did not view Union troops as liberators per se.
 
More revisiting:   Pro confederate feelings in the south were not monolithic.  Confederate areas with few slaves such as the Appalachians and the Ozarks tended to be pro union. 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 17-Oct-2010 at 08:57
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 21:14
While we are at "revisiting", why don't all of you old guys at this site, revisit the past of this site?

It would be interesting and illuminating at the same time!

Surely no new-comer, like me, would be ever able to understand the revolution that occured here just a few years ago!

So, as Ricky Ricardo asked Lucy Ricardo; "splain something to me?"

There are no "old virgins" on this site!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10110
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 08:56
Originally posted by opuslola

While we are at "revisiting", why don't all of you old guys at this site, revisit the past of this site?

It would be interesting and illuminating at the same time!

Surely no new-comer, like me, would be ever able to understand the revolution that occured here just a few years ago!

So, as Ricky Ricardo asked Lucy Ricardo; "splain something to me?"

There are no "old virgins" on this site!

Regards,
 
 
I can't explain anything now.  That would give away the underlying plot for the new daytime soap opera Cyrus and I are writing, "The Edge Of Wetness".
 
Big smile
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 14:50
Yes! red clay, you have a good title for the book, I was going to "come" to a point, but decided it was not worth it!    But, I was on "the edge!"
Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Garfed View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Apr-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
  Quote Garfed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2011 at 21:14
I think it depends on the individual historians, if they really have problems, or are trying to find deep and get attention. Some revisionists is so universally accepted, what is far away, seems to have little or no problem...
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14787
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2011 at 02:03
Sentence "history is written by the winner" show us that revisionism is needed if we insist on history and
truth!Everything else are story tales!New technologies give new dimension for further virtual remake of all
historical events!


Edited by medenaywe - 12-Apr-2011 at 05:28
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2011
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
  Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2011 at 16:01

However there are few facts in History than most people think it’s not a science. The Battle of Wherever fought on such a date by this or that army, ok can easily agree on who won (not always)

 But why did they win? And what effect did that have? Now that can be debated.

Good revisionist history challenges accepted theories and either overturns them or makes those who support them defend it.

For instance I was brought up with the ‘Fact’ that British Generals were all fools who drove their men to needless slaughter in WWI—Clarke’s  ‘Lions led by Donkeys ‘, This ‘fact’ was in the mainstream of British thought at all levels taught in schools even in Comedy, e.g.  Blackadder’s Lord Melchett.

However I have read several works over the last few years that really challenges that view, using sound sensible argument and facts to challenge an accepted notion.

Unfortunately History makes money for publishers so they want controversial headline hitting stuff.

You simply need to have an open mind and treat an argument on its merits.

Smile
cymru am byth
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2011 at 16:13
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

However there are few facts in History than most people think it’s not a science. The Battle of Wherever fought on such a date by this or that army, ok can easily agree on who won (not always)

 But why did they win? And what effect did that have? Now that can be debated.

Good revisionist history challenges accepted theories and either overturns them or makes those who support them defend it.

For instance I was brought up with the ‘Fact’ that British Generals were all fools who drove their men to needless slaughter in WWI—Clarke’s  ‘Lions led by Donkeys ‘, This ‘fact’ was in the mainstream of British thought at all levels taught in schools even in Comedy, e.g.  Blackadder’s Lord Melchett.

However I have read several works over the last few years that really challenges that view, using sound sensible argument and facts to challenge an accepted notion.

Unfortunately History makes money for publishers so they want controversial headline hitting stuff.

You simply need to have an open mind and treat an argument on its merits.

Smile
 
As one.... that's not revisionism, perse; that's merely history being reviewed and subjected to the 'methods' re-examanation by an objective and hopefully in a competent fashion. History itself is neither good or bad....but the representation of it might be..... for any number of reasons.
 
Revisionism as it's defined, in it's current vogue, centers imo, more for and on political agendas and restatements of those in support or refutation. With little consideration or complete rejection for previous work and sources and an emphasis on hyperbole or facts and sources still in dispute themselves with an individual reckless disregard for peer review.... then a careful rexamination and objective eval of competing theorems.
 
It has been that for centuries.Wink
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2011
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
  Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2011 at 16:50
Will not disagree either I had an incorrect or different notion of what revisionism is, to me to 'revise' is simply to look again or relearn something that is always important.
 
As I said history sells so sensationalist or shocking interpretation get time and publicitywhich means money and ego massage.
Take your point however.
Smile
cymru am byth
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2011 at 17:27
And, I will ditto the explicit words of Kevinmeath above!

He/she is mostly exactly correct!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
unclefred View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended, Historum joker

Joined: 09-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 337
  Quote unclefred Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2011 at 11:04
Originally posted by red clay

I found this the other day while rummaging in the Archives.  I did not write any of this.  It's a post put up by a former Admin. Komnenos.
 
 
How to become a revisionist historian in two easy steps:
 
1. Take one universally accepted, well researched and documented historical phenomenon, go to the pub, and after a couple of drinks come up with a theory that claims the exact opposite to everyone else's view.
Spend a couple of hours googling and dig out some other poor soul's claims that, with some fanciful interpretation, might support your claims, the more fantastic, the better. (Amateurish attempts on  etymology and slightly racist undertones are optional at this stage.) Find some internet forum to post your claims.
2. Denounce all evidence  that might contradict your new theory as either erroneous or as deliberately falsified, preferably by some sinister global conspiracy. Portray yourself as victim of such conspiracy, especially when you're just about to be banned from said forum. Move on to the next forum.
 
.WinkBig smileEvil Smile
 
 
 
Very apt. I just saw the very scenario played out on Historum with some guy claiming Egyptians were black. He didn't get to leave after crying 'conspiracy by the mods', he was banned.
Back to Top
Vagos View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2011
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32
  Quote Vagos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2011 at 09:18
Hello to all . This is a very interesting theme.  Generally I think that revisionism (without to extravagate)  is very useful.     It's not good if we are dogmatic .  example  if someone claims that the Han Empire was only a myth  than  he must give us some proofs for his claims ... If he believes that only because of his intuition, then I respect this but  I think that he is 99,99 % wrong in his thinking.

The greatest mistake that a human mind can do is to be dogmatic .  If someone has something to say than he should say this whatever it's holocaustdenial  or not . BUT we anticipate then proofs that back up his claims ...     The onjektive mind can  than  jufge pro, neutral  or contra to it.

To opuslola : Ron you claims are very interesting  . First of all I think History is science.  You must know science is not only a description for natural sciences but it's also a description for social sciences like sociology, psychology, philosophy, philology  etc. so we can describe History also as a Science.  
And to be honest te ultimate truth exist in none science. Noeither to the social and human sciences , not to the natural sciences .   As example  I am going to give to you  that ''fact'' that the Earth was in the center of the universe till th 15century .  The geocentric model was not a a folkloric belief of fools but a very advanced and complicated system of astronomy that had begann with Aristotele,Hipparchos  and Ptolemy (Algmagest). Before Coperinicus  I know only one man that supported the heliocentric model .  The ancient Greek astronomer Aristarhos from Samos  supported the heliocentric model but he  had no change with his ''revisionistic pseudo-science'' against the ''auctoritas'' of Aristotele , Archimedes and Ptolemy .

Today we support not even the heliocentric model (we know  with our modern science that the Sun is not in the center of the Universe) and we believe that our Sun is only one of millions or even billions  in the known-observable  Universe. In 500 or even in 50 years the science will maybe have a better explanation etc.    

Another example is the neuonian physic .  It was seen from the enlightment science as a de facto tool of ALL the world .  Today our science believes that the neutonian mechanics are only a small part of the relativistics physics and useful only in ''our world''  .         How many degrees( angles) has a triangle ?  180 ?     Wrong ... It's  a point of observation and ciricumstances.     If you would ask Euclid  or the medieval scientists , then they would swear to you that the triangle has ALWAYS 180 angles degree.  If you would ask  Gauss, Riemann or Lobatsevsky they would say that the eykclidean geometry is only a part of a greter rimanian space  ...  They are only few examples that even in the natural sciences   absolute knowledge don't exist !


About Fomenko it's very good if one try to learn more sciences  but it's not  good if one try to speak about other sciences whithout to know about them .  A mathematician is speaking about History.  Think only if a historian would speak without mathematical education about Mathematics LOL

Wikipedia submit that most of the mainstrem scienstists rejekt his history work as pseudoscience. It's also seen as a expression russian nationalism.       I could not understand why it's supposed to be  a form of russian nationalism until I saw that Fomenko claims that  the ancient history is a invention of the middle ages , the arab and chinese history is a invetion of the Europeans , the Mongols and the Tatars were RUSSIANS Clap . It's obvious that these claims of him have a smell of russian-eurocentric nationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29
We have many sources from the past .  example pyramids, graves of the pharaos , many ancient scriptes  in ancient languages like greek, latin , hebrew, aramaic , sumerian, chinese, indian  etc. 

We have the monument of Parthenon in Athena and the Coloseum of Rome ...     Thanks to the modern technology we can find very easy the age of those monuments , so I think it's   pseudoscience if someone rejekt those facts .  exaple if I say the pyramids of Gisa are build  in the middle ages  that's against the logic because modern science has tested that the pyramids of Giza rare from the third millenium B.C.  

About the mongolic invasions in Russia  , why would  the Russians invent a imaginary asian enemy who conquer them ???   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus#The_age_of_the_Tatar_yoke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacking_of_Suzdal_by_Batu_Khan.jpg

Greetings 
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14787
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2011 at 09:48
Mathematics says that concentration of human population can not fall at once,also can not rise!Main point of arguments,have been used by Fomenko,is  that  without  global  disaster or production tools revolutionary change,people could not have vanished or appeared.Population on Earth have increased during last two centuries cause of industrial revolution also information revolution.
  I claim:During last glacial period people lived around coastal areas near Equatorial  point  zero.During  period of ice melting migrations were enforced:old habitats were flooded,so they would have climbed up.
Different zones separated by Ice,could not have separated people anymore.Egypt would remind us that all colors were there!It is more than obvious that one color dominated(in numbers) Asia,Africa and Europe.Areas that were frozen once,they have shared together!Yes always competed among themselves.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 20:43
Good rational posts for the most part!

ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2014 at 20:58
Originally posted by opuslola

Foemenko proposes a series of "set-backs" or if one prefers "set-forwords" that can be used to connect false history to real history!

But, before I go any further, I await some response to my earllier posts?


Come on now! I can take it?

This is an old post, but I can't resist a comment or few!
 
Yes, history is often written by the victors, but in most cases there are also independent by-standers to write unbiased reports of the event, an evening up if you like.
 
Where what has been considered historical fact is questioned upon the finding of new "evidence", this is NOT revisionism as defined.
 
Revisionism is the deliberate fudging of events so as to reflect an entirely different light on a particular subject, such a belittling the Holocaust and its ramifications.
 
In my view, some Historical Revisionists are pure trouble makers, while others have a sinister motive.
 
If an event is to be redefined, let's do it after all new evidence is examined, not at the whim of crazies.
 
Sorry Ron.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.