Historical Revisionism

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

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,

<<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).>>

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.

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". 

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?

Opuslola wrote-

Edited by red clay - 26-Mar-2010 at 08:01

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;

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)

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?

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,

Edited by opuslola - 13-Feb-2010 at 14:06

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

   

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).

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 05-Jun-2008 at 15:37