Revisionism is truly despicable yes or no?

Post Reply New Topic

I really dislike and for example:

Feminism is about equality*

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

The one thing that definitely annoyed me, both as an undergraduate music history major and a graduate student in library science is the constant revisionism of history that was taking place from a pseudo-psychological standpoint. Yes, it might work for anything written by Beethoven after the so-called Heiligestadt Testament after he was rejected by his "Immortal Beloved", as well as Tchaickovsky and his relationship with Najeda Von Meck. But why do the musicologists have to try to psychoanalyze the life of Johann Sebastan Bach, Heinrich Scuetz, or Dietrich Buxtehude?

You are all revisionists.

It has been said each generation changes history, just by viewing it from their time.

WWII is now about good overcoming evil, except when done by The Soviet Union, because they a different political system, which all the other players adopted every time they went to war.

One of the current views is War is how States gain more power over their own citizens. See Homeland Security.

Sanctions and funding groups in other countries, is not new. Nothing is new, and six members of the old Ukraine government die of suicide, the new government said so. Someone started shooting in Kiev, Syria, now near the Kremlin, playing lets you and him fight.

The same was happening in Germany leading up to the war.

Good and Evil are about trade, markets, and all wars are about economics. Sometimes it is about markets, some times about reviving a failed economy.

Iben Khaldun wrote all about it in 1300. States need enemies, so they can raise taxes, have a standing army, which Polices their citizens, debases the money, sends spies, assassins, to destroy their economic rivals, so they can take their markets. When other states respond in kind, taxes have to go up, governments have to have more domestic power.

In the end, productive citizens slip away in the night. "Money and talent will move toward freedom." I Khaldun

Khaldun shows how all governments before his time followed the same path, how all fell.

All governments since have followed the same path, most have fallen, only a few recent examples remain, they are on the path to destruction.

They all claim "This time is different." We are defending God, His People, but it always ends the same.

Government is the leading cause of poverty. When I was coming up a dollar was one ounce of Silver, that is now twenty dollars.

The end is near.

Revising history to suit the living seems like one of the most dishonest and selfish things someone can do. Think of all The Futures you deprive when you rewrite history to suit your needs.

There is revisionism, and then there is revisionism.

Its a sliding scale.

It CAN BE truly despicable when some power-at-be tries to obliterate memory for propaganda reasons. An ancient emperor destroying all records because he wants all of history to start with him, or the Nazi's burning books, or the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha carved by their own infidel ancestors of centuries ago. BUT- if that sort of thing happens in one epoch then subsequent historians have to correct that revision by doing their own revising of history back again.

And you can't just "present historic facts". I could hand you the New York City phone book of 1930 with all of the names in it. And let you sift through all of the names. It would be unbiased, and unedited, and unadulterated in any way. So you would not be able to complain that I was "coloring" the facts. But what would forcing you to read the raw list of names in the phonebook accomplish toward teaching you about life in NYC in 1930? Someone has to be paid to use sources and to interpret raw data -and turn it into some kind of interpretation.

People have been revising history as long as they have been writing it.

Anybody who has taken an advanced level history class where you evaluate primary sources can see this.

The story of Torquatus and the Gaul is a prime example. It's a really interesting story from the early Roman Republic. It's sort of a David and Goliath story.

In brief:
The Romans are fighting the Gauls for control of a bridge and they're at a stalemate. A huge Gaul comes out and issues a challenge--single combat for the bridge.

None of the Romans respond. So the giant Gaul begins to taunt the legion calling them cowards. Finally a young Roman, Titus Manlius accepts the challenge.

Manlius uses the Gaul's stature and high center of gravity against him. He knocks him off balance, scores a couple of good stabs in the chest and the groin of the Gaul. The Gaul bleeds out, and collapses. Manlius beheads the corpse and removes the Gaul's silver torque (basically a rigid necklace/collar). Then he dons the bloody torque and raises the severed head in triumph for all to see.

He is proclaimed a hero and given the agnomen Torquatus.

This is pretty much exactly what the annalist Quadrigarius wrote about the incident.

The more famous Historian, Livy used Quadrigarius as a source when he wrote his version of the story...

The basic facts of both accounts are the same. BUT, Livy's account is much more detailed and in his account Titius Manlius is described as the Ideal Roman Soldier.

Both accounts give you the same facts.

Livy's revision also gives the reader a lesson in what a Roman should be.

Here's the thing. In the intro to his history, Livy tells us: