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
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Historical Revisionism
    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
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2008 at 09:04
You know, Al Jassas. We have a forum for it now. Moved.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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).
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 Smile ), 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. 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 05-Jun-2008 at 15:37
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Edited by deadkenny - 05-Jun-2008 at 15:48
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
anewchinaman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote anewchinaman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

   
Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
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: 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;

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

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 languageCool allow me to translate.Big smile 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.   LOLBig smile
 
 
 
 


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

Edited by opuslola - 02-Apr-2010 at 15:02
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
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: 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/
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: 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/
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10111
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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". 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: 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,

Edited by opuslola - 10-Apr-2010 at 19:05
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: 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.
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-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/
Back to Top
Nurica View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 56
  Quote Nurica Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 LOL
 
 
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»". 
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 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.
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.