Historical Revisionism
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24579
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 19:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Historical Revisionism
Posted By: Al Jassas
Subject: Historical Revisionism
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 08:08
|
Hello To you all
I don't know if some one have already addressed the topic or not but I want fellow forumers here to talk freely about historical revisionism. Is it right, is it wrong, is it worth it?
Many historians oppose revisionism as an attempt to distort history or polish the criminals. They claim that history should be taught as it happened and that "explaining" certain events or "justifying" certain actions is wrong.
Yet here is the thing that comes into mind when I read those anti revisionist historians, easily spotted when they taunt other as being "revisionists", these people also use revisionism and you hardly can find a single historian that doesn't revise and omitt certain aspects of history.
The last example of revisionism I stumbled upon was Pat Buchanan's strange defense of Nazi Germany as a "peace-loving" regime that was forced to war. Even Chamberline who is hated by everybody for Munich knew that war was coming and did some preparations for it.
So what do you think?
Al-Jassas
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 09:04
|
You know, Al Jassas. We have a forum for it now. Moved.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 15:06
|
I think it depends on the individual historian and if they actually have a point or are trying to look profound and get attention. Some revisionism is simply so far from what is generally accepted that there seems little or no point for it. However, some revisionist historians such as G.R. Elton (on Henry VIII) and Richard Evans (on Nazi Germany before the war) do have some serious points and reasons to back up their interesting claims. A distinction has to be made from so called "t.v. historians" who often contradict generally accepted historical fact to get more viewers. Many people don't seem to realise that one can still explore the issues of a certain area in history without neccesarily taking a so called "revisionist" role and, as you say, to some extent, every historian is a revisionist in their own right. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 15:11
|
Personally I distinguish between theories that offer different explanations of the same historical facts (acceptable in principle, though arguably wrong), and theories that deny the facts themselves (unacceptable). ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 15:36
|
History is more pliable than mathematics or physics, so it invites revisionism. Historical fads have their day in university seminars and are then replaced by other fads (often when the professors who support them start retiring or stop publishing).
On the favorable side, all the revisionist thinking and publishing keeps historical matters interesting. On the other hand, it could be seen as an unwritten professional policy to promote job security among profs.....keep the "further research is needed, etc." in play.
In the last decade or so, there seems to me to be less interest in historical research - it is a lot of tedium. Conventional wisdom perpetuated through TV programming and popular publishing is more profitable. Why work to revise when what is available is marketable?
As a last comment (I can hear the sighs of relief
 ), most professional historians tend to spend their entire careers defending the positions in their doctoral dissertations. Revisionism seems to come more from scholarly criticism on the part of newer historians who need to build their C.V. |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 15:46
|
The term has tended to take on something of a negative connotation, and used most often with regard to 'theories' that are consider to be in the realm of 'conspiracy theories'. However, if you consider the term 'revisionist'' in its 'generic' sense, then one can't really make an accurate 'generalization' about it. It simply means a 'revision' of the previously generally or 'mainstream' view of an historical event. With that 'definition', one has to consider on a case-by-case basis. It can be anything from good scholarly work that 'exposes' some commonly believed 'myths' (e.g. Glantz's work on the eastern front in WWII might fit into this category). On the other hand, the 'revisionist theories' regarding FDR deliberately setting up the American fleet in Pearl for an attack by Japan in order to justify getting the US into the war I believe has been pretty well refuted and discredited. However, a reasonable effort at putting forward a 'revisionist theory' can still be valuable, even if it is ultimately refuted as it can generate a lot of interest and a lot of good scholarly work. The really bad 'revisionism' can simply be an attempt at 'sensationalism' without any solid basis for putting forward the theory other than to get a book published and to generate publicity. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: anewchinaman
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 05:21
|
An old saying, "history is written by the winner" Need I say more? Principally, because there is little doubt that every society tries to idolize its history, "history" will always be intentionally distorted to tailor to the particular society's needs. If you need anymore evidence, then simply ask why are there so few literature favorable to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, both groups were rebels who dispose their governments. There must be a reason for this, right? Until the Anglos are disposed, I highly doubt history will be revisited |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 14:42
|
Depends on what one means by "revisionism." New ideas and critiques of current ideas re always good. The problem isn't revisionism, it's ideologically-motivated revisionism, and revisionism based on intellectual fads, that is the problem.
------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2010 at 13:42
|
I thought I'd post here, where all the previous posters are already gone to greener pastures, etc., and state my views towards "revisionism"!
I would contend that to a great many people, the very word "revisionist" is most often directed to the "Holocaust deniers", and nothing more! This of course gives the word a negative slant, even though a lot of "revisionism" has nothing to do with the Nazi's or the Holocaust! To me, "Revising History", is "revisionism!" That is, I feel that history and chronology as we now accept it in the mainstream of academia, is wrong at many points, and fiction in general! Now, when I used the words in the last paragraph, I am pointing directly to reported historical events that preceed (for the most part) the invention of the printing press, and the period of time we now call the "Renaissance!", for it is in this time that much of the history before it, was created or mal-formed! I base my ideas upon the shoulders of those who have preceeded me, men like Newton, Rohl, Velikovsky, and the Fomenko Group, amongst others un named. Sir Isaac Newton is known to this day as a great genius for most of his works, but in the field of chronology and history, he is considered as a "senile old man!", and mention of his historical works is usually omitted from accounts concerning him! Velikovsky, was throughly ridiculed by the academic community for his works, but most of the ridicule originated in his theory concerning solar bodies and the Earth! Physics was not his long suit, I guess! Others who attempted to make a large departure from the accepted dating system were similarly discriminated against to greater and lessor degrees! Most often their views were merely ignored by the establishment with curt mention! In order to give some of you who are not familiar with "history revisionism", I would suggest that you read the following; %20 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism and; this site, which should be kept at a distance from my views; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism) And, to understand the current establishment view of the works of the Fomenko Group, you should read this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko) %20 - I would also suggest that you might take the time to read the discussion page connected to the Wiki article for more information that is kept from the main page! You may even see some remarks made by yours truly? And if math is one of your favorites maybe you will enjoy this? %20 - http://revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm But, if you fail to take the time and actually read the Fomenko books, then you will enjoy Wikipedia's view of them; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2010 at 17:56
|
Why do I believe in pseudo-science? It is, in part, pure unadultrated mathematics! And, also in part, merely common sense, at least once you have read the books!
In future posts, I will began to give any of you interested, my own finds and exposures of past fallacies! As well as some explanation of the Fomenko mathematics! Please, they are simple! So, you really do not have to know a lot about higher math to understand! Enter at your own risk! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2010 at 07:58
|
Opuslola wrote-
In future posts, I will began to give any of you interested, my own finds and exposures of past fallacies! As well as some explanation of the Fomenko mathematics! Please, they are simple! So, you really do not have to know a lot about higher math to understand!
For those of us that are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the English language
 allow me to translate. What he's really saying is the less you know about math, the faster you will swallow this garbage.Oh, almost forgot, the first part. Yes, what he's saying there is he'll talk your ears off about damn near anything if you let him.
 |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2010 at 15:00
|
I certainly appreciate the kind words written by Red-clay above! Like any good announcer (such as the one who said "Here's Johnny!" for so many years), Red-clay "the king of tomatoes?" (See, I still spell it like a former VP! Laugh!) was a perfect straight man for my next few postings!
I certainly hope that Red-clay is able to laugh (after these posts) as heartly as Ed? So, soon, I shall actually begin the "Tonight Show!",in HD!,or rather in "FD", which means "Fomenko Definition!" Laugh! And now a word from our sponser! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2010 at 20:22
|
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? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2010 at 14:21
|
First of all, have but one of you read anything (other than mathematical books) written by A. T. Fomenko, et.al.?
Hope to here from all of you who actually read this post? Your post and a yea! or a neigh laugh or ney!, will suffice, unless you wish to say more! I would like for you to admit reading him, so I can devise a better method for explaining his theory to all of you! That is, if most of you have read at least one of his books, then I will have to do little explanation to get you ready for my views of his theory! But, as a wild guess, I would bet that none of you have read one iota of his actualy words, unless where they were taken to be used against him by some other author! Regards ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2010 at 05:14
|
I Actually did read about 40% of his first Internationally published work. Until my sensitive tum tum started acting up. I have an allergy to " tincture of Bovine". ------------- "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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2010 at 19:01
|
Red clay, just how does you farm background, make you sick!
Maybe you should go and eat a big "bovine" steak, as well as a double baked potatoe, and then respond to me? Certainly cows or bulls should not make you "cry uncle?"!!! Try some more on for size? Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 06-May-2010 at 19:34
|
Historical revisionism is neccessary to continue the quest to form a better understanding of the past. If we accept without questioning the 'Good Queen Bess and Bad King John' theory of History as EH Carr put it then we risk grossly misunderstanding our own progress. We must always question and reform where neccessary. My own research interests are revisionistic, challenging the status quo and providing other alternatives. The problem is that revisionsim has something of a bad reputation, one can come up with alomst any theory and put it under tha banner of historical revisionism. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 17-May-2010 at 10:42
|
DreamWeaver wrote above;
"My own research interests are revisionistic, challenging the status quo and providing other alternatives. The problem is that revisionsim has something of a bad reputation, one can come up with alomst any theory and put it under tha banner of historical revisionism." So, it seems we have something in common after all? As you have read, I also promote such things! So, do you have a special revisionist to mention, such as Newton, Rohl, etc.? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Nurica
Date Posted: 27-May-2010 at 00:31
|
<<Personally I distinguish between theories that offer different explanations of the same historical facts (acceptable in principle, though arguably wrong), and theories that deny the facts themselves (unacceptable).>> It is for sure you are of a complete different cultural tradition than anewchinaman
 Hannah Arendt (Vérité et politique):
"On peut discuter une opinion importune, la rejeter ou transiger avec elle, mais les faits importuns ont cette exaspérante ténacité que rien ne saurait ébranler, sinon de purs et simples mensonges."
Daniel Cornu: "La tâche de l'historien est d'établir, conserver et interpréter un passé. Celui-ci reste ouvert à de nouvelles appréhensions, mais il est par définition stabilisé quant à la production de faits et d'événements. A chaque génération, la lecture de l'histoire peut se transformer en fonction des intérêts du moment, des hypothèses de recherche, mais non l'histoire elle-même. Les interprétations des historiens ne mettent pas en question la réalité des événements qui se sont produits. Ainsi, les historiens peuvent diverger d'opinion quant aux responsabilités lors du déclenchement de la Première Guerre mondiale. Mais aucun d'eux n'oserait affirmer, selon un mot de Clemenceau, que «la Belgique a envahi l'Allemagne»".
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 27-May-2010 at 03:43
|
Yes but one can not stray too far from facts Opusola. Belgium does not invade Germany in 1914 even though under the auspices of Historical Revisionism one could argue for it. Actual evidence and its interpretation are key. If the evidence presented and analysis of it is suprious and poorly linked then even if it is revisionisitc, it is hardly a valid argument. For example the case for Holocaust denial I find rather weak and very tenuous at best and so I dont consider it to be a valid argument. No matter how much one might scream revisionism. For my own work I am merely engaging in a debate that has already existed for a past century and though I wont be shattering any world views or previously conceived notions, I will be contributing a new dimension to an already existant field. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 27-May-2010 at 15:07
|
As has already been stated one cant get very far declaring that Belgium invaded Germany in 1914.
------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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 ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date 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.
.
  ------------- "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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2010 at 18:24
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.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2010 at 08:56
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".
------------- "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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: Garfed
Date 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... |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date 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! |
Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date 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.  ------------- cymru am byth |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 17-May-2011 at 16:13
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. ------------- "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' |
Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date 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.
------------- cymru am byth |
Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/ |
Posted By: unclefred
Date Posted: 18-May-2011 at 11:04
|
Posted By: Vagos
Date 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 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  . 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 |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date 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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 20:43
|
Good rational posts for the most part!
ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2014 at 20:58
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. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2014 at 17:17
|
The Fomenko Group does reveal "New Evidence."
I have read it, how about you? I believe he is on to a great discovery, and many of his theories, and his evidences are as good as those that support the current theory. Sorry Ian. Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2014 at 19:50
------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2014 at 21:36
I'm not going to discuss Fomenko with you any more. We have differing views, and, apparently, neither of us is willing to give ground.
I'll quite happily discuss/debate specific points of history with you, but there's no point in arguing our different beliefs.
"My friend, remember that without stupidity there wouldn't be intelligence, and without ugliness there wouldn't be beauty, so the world needs you after all. "
Anonymous -
http://www.coolfunnyquotes.com/ - http://coolfunnyquotes.com ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2014 at 19:38
|
My so called "friend" wrote;
"My friend, remember that without stupidity there wouldn't be intelligence, and without ugliness there wouldn't be beauty, so the world needs you after all. " Anonymous -" I thank you for calling me "needed!" Smile! Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |