Revisionism is truly despicable yes or no?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it is but there's a contingency that says it's alright to rewrite history, sanitizing it, and it's usually image or profit motivated but it is clearly a misrepresentation. Why is it people have such inflated egos they find no problem in revising something that was so awful? Is this part of the phenomena known as cognitive disassociation or is there something more sinister going on?

A lot of times it seems like they do it just to have something new to present to others, as in, everyone knows the real history so if I repeat it ad nauseam, people will tune me out, but, if I come up with something new to tell them, they will find it interesting so I have to make up history and it's perfectly okay for me, living in the present to do that! Why would anyone have such a notion, that it would be okay for the present to make up the past when there is strong evidence for what happened in the past happening?

Benjamin Disraeli once said, "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.. From what I learned as a music history major, there is no such thing as an unbiased view of history. Most history textbooks have bias written in their pages, mostly for political expediency. For example,why do publishers print a separate book for the State of Texas while printing something completely different for the rest of the country? It's all a matter of economics and political expediency.

Take what was written when the event occurred, read all you can and reach your own conclusions but do not rewrite it to fit your own preconceived notions and then try to pass that off as "the real history." This is what I disapprove of. With the internet, seems like it's more prevalent then it once was and people are more apt to be fooled. Sometimes, pictures are all you need. They tell the story. It's got nothing to do with bias. However, the holocaust, which beyond a shadow of a doubt, was complete wretched evil and horror for all who endured it - and also it cannot be understated that war, in general is horror for all who endure it - but that doesn't subtract from the particular evil of the death camps. Revisionists will try to deduct from the force of evil for a variety of different reasons but evil is evil and it cannot be revised away by The Currents who simply wish it wasn't there, or are uncomfortable with awareness for some reason.

It's not just the holocaust the revisionists will attack, but any kind of evil and yes, evil exists to this day and you see people trying to rationalize it now, as it occurs.

Even people who know history do this. Knowing history, in some cases, seems to be irrelevant. It is so easy to be led astray when you believe you alone know everything. This is why I am a firm believer of authentic images. If an image is the real thing and multiple sources make this claim, the image simply doesn't deceive, does it? Also if several sources witness a particular event and make the same deduction, why dismiss that deduction and attempt to change it years later by putting your own spin on it? It's arrogant.

I don't like "revisionism" in anything.

I like true history--as true as possible!

Absolutely agree and isn't every bias a truth of some kind, if it is uttered by people within close proximity of the event? How can you honestly expect there not to be some kind of bias from them all, since they are human beings. So you have to consider it all but cannot take away from one evil in favor of another. Revisionists will try to make one evil lesser or okay when compared to another when it's really just all bad.

Unfortunately, recorded history is written first by those who remember it. Even the first editions of recorded history usually included opinions to flatter the victors while denigrating the losers. So, revisionism influences all of recorded history not just the recently revised kind. I like researchers who can use tangible evidence and conflicting writings to arrive at more accurate accounts; that is a kind of revisionism which benefits everyone. For me, as a student of genealogy and history, I am suspicious of any historical writings (even first-person accounts) which allow for no alternative renditions. An absolutely certain researcher of history is probably the culprit of many mistakes, and, in history, mistakes have a tendency to propagate. The way to minimize these mistakes is to create an abundance of histories, with evidence and conflicting critiques, and let future readers decide for themselves.

But, don't take my word for it.

Obviously, there will be personal bias--in everything.

However, I believe it is important that we ASPIRE to objective honesty in all things historical.

If there's blatant revisionism--then that should be stamped out immediately.

That there might be a more subtle "revisionism" based upon subtler things is very possible, like various posters have pointed out.

This is why strict guidelines have been implemented in regard to historical writing--this is a reflection of the ASPIRATION toward objective honesty.

There are at least three "alternative" versions of Jesus' life in the Bible.

Despite the "less stringent" standards of historical writing during Biblical times, it was known that ONE account wasn't enough to satisfy the reader.

Excellent example!

One thing that fascinates me to no end about the New Testament - according to the ones who later wrote The Gospels, they had a cult of some kind in Judea and some of the provinces, where they traveled and preached, sorta in the tradition of John the Baptist and yet no one bothered to write anything down. No scribes or anything. Leads me to wonder if everyone in the movement was pretty much illiterate and of the lowest castes. This could be one possible explanation, of course it is mere speculation performed by a confounded soul. There's no way of ever really knowing but it is a good question that lingers to this day.

None of the Gospels were actually written when Jesus was alive, according the King James Version and I find that a very curious fact. Even the ones claimed to have been written by the actual Apostles were written after he died.

I have read the same claims that many residents of First Century Judea were illiterate despite being capable to function in other ways. I have also read that writing anything of importance was a rich man's leisure because the very stuff one uses to write (paper, ink and stylus) weren't affordable to most people there and then. Besides, writing something down implied an intent to share, not just record. But, who knows, maybe some people did do their best to record their lives, but their records have been lost.

Some historians argue that, because Jesus died young and early in his career, His followers probably didn't believe His warnings that He was not long for Earth, and believed that they could write things down "later." Besides, He wanted them to experience his lifestyle, not just take notes about it. All that changed, of course, when He died. Like any assassinated leader of a religious-political movement, His immediate and most loyal followers wanted to (and did) get the heck outta Dodge and save themselves from similar fates. Saint Paul did much to record what the original apostles had apparently told him about Jesus. Curiously, and thankfully, Jewish historians Josephus and Tacitus did similar work to confirm Jesus's life and work despite the lack of much first-person knowledge. Messianic Jews were much admired in First Century Judea and resorted to encampments some distance from the urban centers where they might share their gnostic experiences and knowledge about a messiah even if they didn't know Jesus.

Another thing I consider is the possibility the rebellion was actually worse than they let on and they did have things written down, since there was a wider movement, only to have the authorities destroy all of it when their dwellings were searched and this sort of stunned them all and they were left in a shocked, limbo state for a while, which they recovered from when they realized they wanted to take their good news forward. It's that spirit of optimism and hope that actually accomplishes. Without it, it's lost.

Mmm. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, I agree. That would also complement the idea that Josephus and Tacitus were able to write their records about that period while other presumed writings have gone missing. Even if you have an army, destroying evidence from, say, today's Seymour Hersh would be tantamount to an admission that he was correct. Josephus and Tacitus might have had the only kind of unimpeachable defense from destruction and smearing that anyone could have enjoyed back then.

Do you think the profession of historian is "despicable"? Revising history – reinterpreting the past in light of new evidence and new perspectives – is what historians do.

Historiography is not simply a sequence of events: on June 6th this happened, on the 7th that happened, and so on. Rather a historian has to present that which he believes to be important and significant. And that depends on his values, and changes over time.

Take a modern person of undoubted historical significance, such as Barack Obama. Eventually there will be a tremendous amount of information available concerning his presidency. He will write a book, members of his staff will write books, diaries will be published, official records will be declassified. Fifty years from now a historian will be able to write an excruciatingly detailed account of the Obama presidency – on the afternoon of September 18th he had tuna casserole for lunch, then met with a group of Girl Scouts, then spent an hour with the prime minister of Norway, discussing fishing treaties, and so on and on for the eight years.

And anybody who tried to read such a book would die of boredom. Actually, historians of the future will interpret and reinterpret the Obama presidency according to their values and their knowledge of what follows. Right now Obamacare seems like a big issue to us, but depending on what happens in the next few decades, future histories of the Obama presidency may skim over domestic matters in order to focus on American relations with China. Or with Iran. Or on something we're not even aware of as an issue nowadays.

When people deride a historical view as "revisionist," they merely mean that they disagree with the historian's interpretation and favor another. This is not to say that every interpretation is equally true. It's up to the reader to figure out through what sort of lens a writer is viewing historical events and decide if that lens is objectively valid.

Sometimes it is justifiable. Such as when modern scholars, thanks to a more liberal view of civil rights, have taken a new look at the radical Republicans, realizing that they hadn't been the villains out to destroy the heroic but defeated Confederacy as they had been portrayed in the past, but as men ahead of their time regarding their views on race relations and civil liberties.

I really dislike and for example:

Feminism is about equality*

*expect feminism was about getting the rich women to have the right to vote.