Historical Revisionism

[blah the Prussian]

So if you're into history (and you know I am if you have ever had a conversation with me about anything) you might be aware of the term 'revisionist'. A revisionist is someone who, according to Wikipedia, "critically reexamines the facts of presumed history and historiography" which in English means has a different opinion. However, spend a lot of time around history buffs and you'd think that a revisionist is right up there with the Nazis in terms of evil. Pretty much whenever I express that, you know, maybe Louis XVI wasn't such a bad king, or that Woodrow Wilson was actually one of the worst Presidents ever, I am labeled a revisionist like it's an insult. Basically what that says is that having a view different from that of the establishment is bad, and that's really sad, because in my opinion the best part of history is interpreting the facts and trying to come up with an algorithm to explain them. For Marxists that algorithm is class relations, for Whigs that algorithm is the march of freedom, but now you pretty much have to accept one of these existing historiographical theories, because it seems to be the case that more and more, different opinions are frowned upon. Am I imagining this?

[Life]

So if you're into history (and you know I am if you have ever had a conversation with me about anything) you might be aware of the term 'revisionist'. A revisionist is someone who, according to Wikipedia, "critically reexamines the facts of presumed history and historiography" which in English means has a different opinion. However, spend a lot of time around history buffs and you'd think that a revisionist is right up there with the Nazis in terms of evil. Pretty much whenever I express that, you know, maybe Louis XVI wasn't such a bad king, or that Woodrow Wilson was actually one of the worst Presidents ever, I am labeled a revisionist like it's an insult. Basically what that says is that having a view different from that of the establishment is bad, and that's really sad, because in my opinion the best part of history is interpreting the facts and trying to come up with an algorithm to explain them. For Marxists that algorithm is class relations, for Whigs that algorithm is the march of freedom, but now you pretty much have to accept one of these existing historiographical theories, because it seems to be the case that more and more, different opinions are frowned upon. Am I imagining this?

The problem I have with revisionists is that I deal with a lot who try to rewrite the Middle East, especially when dealing with the touchy subject of Israel/Palestine. So I have negative feelings towards the word.

[Bman]

The professor for the history of the Middle Ages at my university did not get his job the first time he applied for it back in the 90s. There was a dipute between two well-known historians, and in his interview, he was asked which one of them he supported. He just happened to support the one the other professors opposed, and he was denied, so I'd say there are definetely cases where it can be bad for you to have a different opinion.

I guess it also has to do with where you come from, I mean, as a person from France you interpret the 100-Years-War differently than a person from England.

[blah the Prussian]

The problem I have with revisionists is that I deal with a lot who try to rewrite the Middle East, especially when dealing with the touchy subject of Israel/Palestine. So I have negative feelings towards the word.

To some extent you can't really rewrite the history of the Middle East because there isn't much of a common academic consensus.

[Yojinbo]

I never understood that either. Tbh I think revisionism is an inherently good thing.

[Moblin Major General]

So if you're into history (and you know I am if you have ever had a conversation with me about anything) you might be aware of the term 'revisionist'. A revisionist is someone who, according to Wikipedia, "critically reexamines the facts of presumed history and historiography" which in English means has a different opinion. However, spend a lot of time around history buffs and you'd think that a revisionist is right up there with the Nazis in terms of evil. Pretty much whenever I express that, you know, maybe Louis XVI wasn't such a bad king, or that Woodrow Wilson was actually one of the worst Presidents ever, I am labeled a revisionist like it's an insult. Basically what that says is that having a view different from that of the establishment is bad, and that's really sad, because in my opinion the best part of history is interpreting the facts and trying to come up with an algorithm to explain them. For Marxists that algorithm is class relations, for Whigs that algorithm is the march of freedom, but now you pretty much have to accept one of these existing historiographical theories, because it seems to be the case that more and more, different opinions are frowned upon. Am I imagining this?

That is a misnomer: The Communists were far more revisionist than the Nazis. Himmler was only a revisionist in the sense that he wanted to link Germany to ancient pastoral cultures that predated the time of Abraham. The Communists went to great length in an attempt to say that they were always in charge, or to paint the past as one that was grim without them. That isn't entirely false, as Communism led to the modernization of China, Vietnam, and many states in Eastern Europe (except Czechoslovakia, that was pretty modern pre-Warsaw Pact). More to the point, revisionism is necessary when things change, lest there become some radical leftist group that does it to such a degree that history is either entirely rewritten, or is discarded entirely for what is perceived to be a lack of pertinence. That is dangerous. However, I do not agree with religious revisionism, because it makes the text in question seem to be less relevant in the daily life of the devotee. This is exactly why I use an Old King James Bible, because not only is it the purest form of the English Bible, but because I can understand Middle English quite well. Also, if you read it in a southern accent, it would sound historically accurate.

[Etrurian emperor]

Its seems common for revisionists to fall into a particular agenda but I also find instances where a second look at history can be greatly appreciated.

The Roman emperors would be a good example of this. A lot of them like Tiberius, Domitian and to some extend even the trainwrecks like Nero and Caligula get remembered more in the way the Senate remembered them then for what they actually did. With Senators being the historians it was all to easy for slander to make it into the history books. These trends are largely getting averted or at the very least addressed in more modern works.

[blah the Prussian]

Its seems common for revisionists to fall into a particular agenda but I also find instances where a second look at history can be greatly appreciated.

The Roman emperors would be a good example of this. A lot of them like Tiberius, Domitian and to some extend even the trainwrecks like Nero and Caligula get remembered more in the way the Senate remembered them then for what they actually did. With Senators being the historians it was all to easy for slander to make it into the history books. These trends are largely getting averted or at the very least addressed in more modern works.

Ah, Domitian! I actually love Domitian, and wish he succeeded in fully breaking the power of the Senate. A technocratic absolute monarchy is better than an oligarchic semi absolute monarchy any day.

That is a misnomer: The Communists were far more revisionist than the Nazis. Himmler was only a revisionist in the sense that he wanted to link Germany to ancient pastoral cultures that predated the time of Abraham. The Communists went to great length in an attempt to say that they were always in charge, or to paint the past as one that was grim without them. That isn't entirely false, as Communism led to the modernization of China, Vietnam, and many states in Eastern Europe (except Czechoslovakia, that was pretty modern pre-Warsaw Pact). More to the point, revisionism is necessary when things change, lest there become some radical leftist group that does it to such a degree that history is either entirely rewritten, or is discarded entirely for what is perceived to be a lack of pertinence. That is dangerous. However, I do not agree with religious revisionism, because it makes the text in question seem to be less relevant in the daily life of the devotee. This is exactly why I use an Old King James Bible, because not only is it the purest form of the English Bible, but because I can understand Middle English quite well. Also, if you read it in a southern accent, it would sound historically accurate.

I've also noticed that Neo Stalinists accuse anyone who criticizes Stalin of being a revisionist.

[Etrurian emperor]

Ah, Domitian! I actually love Domitian, and wish he succeeded in fully breaking the power of the Senate. A technocratic absolute monarchy is better than an oligarchic semi absolute monarchy any day.

Domitian was the one who springs to my mind firstly when I think of demonized emperors. He strikes me as strict(if not brutal) but an effective administrator. He just didn't make the same mistakes as the others to deserve the bad reputation.

What probably had a part to play in Domitian bad reputation is that he was the last of his dynasty. I suspect at least part of reason many last monarchs are getting bad press is so the first of the new dynasty can say he was justified in taking over. Maybe that's mostly the case in China with their whole ''mandate of heaven'' aspect to their rule.

[Life]

To some extent you can't really rewrite the history of the Middle East because there isn't much of a common academic consensus.

Are you kidding? The Arabs have rewritten the entire period from the last 1890's until now. There are many that still deny that the 1947 Partition Plan even existed along with other peace accords since. If that's not revisionism, tell me what is.

[blah the Prussian]

Are you kidding? The Arabs have rewritten the entire period from the last 1890's until now. There are many that still deny that the 1947 Partition Plan even existed along with other peace accords since. If that's not revisionism, tell me what is.

Yes, but they aren't rewriting it from anything. Revisionists are typically people who challenge well established historiographical theories.

Domitian was the one who springs to my mind firstly when I think of demonized emperors. He strikes me as strict(if not brutal) but an effective administrator. He just didn't make the same mistakes as the others to deserve the bad reputation.

What probably had a part to play in Domitian bad reputation is that he was the last of his dynasty. I suspect at least part of reason many last monarchs are getting bad press is so the first of the new dynasty can say he was justified in taking over. Maybe that's mostly the case in China with their whole ''mandate of heaven'' aspect to their rule.

I like Domitian for his extremely progressive meritocratic beaureacracy. Although to be fair Domitian would have been the last of his dynasty anyway, because he didn't have a male heir and Rome had a strict no vaginas rule.

[Walker]

The objection to this is because no one likes the idea that history isn't set in stone. "The future is built upon the past" to quote a certain black dragon, and further with quotes "Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." In other words, those who rock the boat, and dare claim that maybe history isn't what everyone thinks it is, will get shunned because no one whats to question what should be absolute fact.

My personal opinions on this follows another quote. "History will be kind to be, for I intend to write it." History is subjective. I would know, I still call it the "War of Northern Aggression" because it was, okay? Stupid Union ruining everything. Is there anything wrong with the victor writing history? Yes, but only if you fail to acknowledge it as such.

[blah the Prussian]

The objection to this is because no one likes the idea that history isn't set in stone. "The future is built upon the past" to quote a certain black dragon, and further with quotes "Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." In other words, those who rock the boat, and dare claim that maybe history isn't what everyone thinks it is, will get shunned because no one whats to question what should be absolute fact.

My personal opinions on this follows another quote. "History will be kind to be, for I intend to write it." History is subjective. I would know, I still call it the "War of Northern Aggression" because it was, okay? Stupid Union ruining everything. Is there anything wrong with the victor writing history? Yes, but only if you fail to acknowledge it as such.

Okay, this may be off topic, and if it is I'll stop. For now, though, It's time for a takedown. The South explicitly went against the will of a non dictatorial government when it rebelled. I honestly don't care if the abolition of slavery was tyranny from the North or whatever, or, as you put it in another thread, it was about democracy. In my mind, any people who willingly and knowingly perpetuate slavery are unworthy of democracy.

[Life]

Okay, this may be off topic, and if it is I'll stop. For now, though, It's time for a takedown. The South explicitly went against the will of a non dictatorial government when it rebelled. I honestly don't care if the abolition of slavery was tyranny from the North or whatever, or, as you put it in another thread, it was about democracy. In my mind, any people who willingly and knowingly perpetuate slavery are unworthy of democracy.

Why? Slavery itself was also common in the north and it wasn't for racial reasons but economic.

I'll touch on this more later but I do have things to say.

[blah the Prussian]

Why? Slavery itself was also common in the north and it wasn't for racial reasons but economic.

I'll touch on this more later but I do have things to say.

What I meant was more along the lines of "if the people, through democracy, want to keep slavery, I don't care, and it is the moral duty of the government to ignore them." They obviously get democracy after the fact, although I will say that the attitude of the North in the postwar was both stupid and harmful.

[Etrurian emperor]

My personal opinions on this follows another quote. "History will be kind to be, for I intend to write it." History is subjective. I would know, I still call it the "War of Northern Aggression" because it was, okay? Stupid Union ruining everything. Is there anything wrong with the victor writing history? Yes, but only if you fail to acknowledge it as such.

But isn't the civil war one of the rare exceptions to the rule that the winners write history? A lot of the lost cause school of history is still around these days, albeit less strong. Things like Grant being a mere drunk for example.

[blah the Prussian]

But isn't the civil war one of the rare exceptions to the rule that the winners write history? A lot of the lost cause school of history is still around these days, albeit less strong. Things like Grant being a mere drunk for example.

Grant was overrated tbh. The only thing he really did was to never stop pressing Lee regardless of casualties. He pretty much inherited a massive strategic advantage, and all he did was put it to good use. The real tactical and strategic genius the Union had was Sherman. The March to the Sea was a work of art. He knew every disadvantage his enemy had, and exploited it to the fullest. He marched his army deep into enemy territory and won. Grant never did anything like that. I will agree, though, that as our good friend StWalker has shown, Confederate apologism is still very much a problem.

[Etrurian emperor]

Grant was overrated tbh. The only thing he really did was to never stop pressing Lee regardless of casualties. He pretty much inherited a massive strategic advantage, and all he did was put it to good use. The real tactical and strategic genius the Union had was Sherman. The March to the Sea was a work of art. He knew every disadvantage his enemy had, and exploited it to the fullest. He marched his army deep into enemy territory and won. Grant never did anything like that. I will agree, though, that as our good friend StWalker has shown, Confederate apologism is still very much a problem.

Considering how many people consider Grant to be a mere drunken butcher who just tossed his numbers around I actually find him underrated but that probably has just as much to do with the negative press of the lost cause as his own positive accomplishments.

[False Prophet]

That is a misnomer: The Communists were far more revisionist than the Nazis. Himmler was only a revisionist in the sense that he wanted to link Germany to ancient pastoral cultures that predated the time of Abraham. The Communists went to great length in an attempt to say that they were always in charge, or to paint the past as one that was grim without them. That isn't entirely false, as Communism led to the modernization of China, Vietnam, and many states in Eastern Europe (except Czechoslovakia, that was pretty modern pre-Warsaw Pact). More to the point, revisionism is necessary when things change, lest there become some radical leftist group that does it to such a degree that history is either entirely rewritten, or is discarded entirely for what is perceived to be a lack of pertinence. That is dangerous. However, I do not agree with religious revisionism, because it makes the text in question seem to be less relevant in the daily life of the devotee. This is exactly why I use an Old King James Bible, because not only is it the purest form of the English Bible, but because I can understand Middle English quite well. Also, if you read it in a southern accent, it would sound historically accurate.

So what is your opinion on any schism?

Anyone here is a Restorationist?

Anyway, the situation in Vietnam is pretty bizarre. I wouldn't say that it's purely Historical Revisionist, but the common history books skim a number of events that make the Communist Party looks bad (for example, there is not a single word about the 1964 Brinks Hotel Bombing even thought there is a tablet of memorial at the site.) The Geneva convention was implied as being violated by both side, however.) That, and the personal-cult of Uncle Ho, which had decreased in the last few years. I don't know if things are the same in China.

Also, why we are at it, are there any philosophical aim to history revisionist - I means, not to make a specific thought system look bad?

Edited March 2, 2016 by False Prophet

[Original Alear]

That is a misnomer: The Communists were far more revisionist than the Nazis. Himmler was only a revisionist in the sense that he wanted to link Germany to ancient pastoral cultures that predated the time of Abraham. The Communists went to great length in an attempt to say that they were always in charge, or to paint the past as one that was grim without them. That isn't entirely false, as Communism led to the modernization of China, Vietnam, and many states in Eastern Europe (except Czechoslovakia, that was pretty modern pre-Warsaw Pact). More to the point, revisionism is necessary when things change, lest there become some radical leftist group that does it to such a degree that history is either entirely rewritten, or is discarded entirely for what is perceived to be a lack of pertinence. That is dangerous. However, I do not agree with religious revisionism, because it makes the text in question seem to be less relevant in the daily life of the devotee. This is exactly why I use an Old King James Bible, because not only is it the purest form of the English Bible, but because I can understand Middle English quite well. Also, if you read it in a southern accent, it would sound historically accurate.

No offense, but I find it hard to take you seriously as an authority on nazi revisionism when you miss their relatively contemporary revisionism of turning history into a series of race relations, putting the blame put on the jews and communists for the german defeat during world war i, and book burning by the nazis. Revionism isn't simply limited to theories on ancient history. I also wonder if viewing an english version of the bible as the best version of the bible isn't an example of religious revisionism considering that the bible wasn't written in english.

Why? Slavery itself was also common in the north and it wasn't for racial reasons but economic.

I'll touch on this more later but I do have things to say.

While outlawed relatively recently before the civil war, most northern states had ended slavery about a decade before the civil war. It is true that racism was strong in the north as well.

EDIT-I continually find myself typing revionism :(

Edited March 2, 2016 by Sane Young Dog Man

[blah the Prussian]

Considering how many people consider Grant to be a mere drunken butcher who just tossed his numbers around I actually find him underrated but that probably has just as much to do with the negative press of the lost cause as his own positive accomplishments.

Grant does deserve a lot of credit for his doggedness, but as Sherman demonstrated there were less bloody ways he could have gone about breaking the CSA.

[Walker]

Didn't mean to sidetrack this forum with Civil War discussion, but once we're on the topic ...

Grant was not a good general. He wasn't a bad one, but he wasn't a good one either. If you look at history, Grant didn't really do much, except land the finishing blow. Sure, there was Vicksburg, but that wasn't the crux. Gettysburg? General Meade won that, and more through not being incompetent than anything else. Pickett's Charge was idiotic. If Stonewall Jackson was still alive at that battle, that probably wouldn't have happened. Thank you, General Longstreet. You bureaucrat.

I'm not going to say the South were entirely in the right, however... Lincoln won the ballot without a single Southern State! The South argued, with good reason, that they weren't being represented. The North had the populous majority, so they could abuse the massive estates of the South because they felt like it! Also, Lincoln's view on secession were ... well, look up his response from Texas seceding from Mexico, as a result of Americans settling in Texas. It's hard to say whether or not the North attacked first, because the South opened fire first ... on a Union fort in their territory. Gray area there. I will not discuss the morality of slavery, because while I certainly don't agree with the Southern practice of it, the North abused immigrants so they're n the wrong as well. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was solely about slavery really needs recheck their facts. A contributor to the tension - yes. Sole cause - no.

Does believing this qualify me as a Revisionist, that the South were more in the right then the North?

[Original Alear]

I'm not going to say the South were entirely in the right, however... Lincoln won the ballot without a single Southern State! The South argued, with good reason, that they weren't being represented. The North had the populous majority, so they could abuse the massive estates of the South because they felt like it! Also, Lincoln's view on secession were ... well, look up his response from Texas seceding from Mexico, as a result of Americans settling in Texas. It's hard to say whether or not the North attacked first, because the South opened fire first ... on a Union fort in their territory. Gray area there. I will not discuss the morality of slavery, because while I certainly don't agree with the Southern practice of it, the North abused immigrants so they're n the wrong as well. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was solely about slavery really needs recheck their facts. A contributor to the tension - yes. Sole cause - no.

So can you tell me what southern rights aside from the right to own slaves were under threat by the north? And if the South had such a problem with the north using the federal government to abuse their estates on principled grounds, as opposed to pure selfishness, why were they so willing to use the federal government to help track down escaped slaves when they went to the north? The Dred SCott case is also relevant. The South had no problem using the federal government to abuse the rights of others when it was able to.

The fact that no southern state voted for lincoln speaks to the divide between north and south. Those divisions surely went beyond the existence of slavery. I won't argue with that.

I'm amazed that you aren't willing to discuss the morality of slavery, but are willing to discuss the morality of a president not elected by southern states when the entire slave population of the south was used to help weight confederate votes (the 3/5 compromise) without actually allowing any of those slaves to vote. Would the vote have gone differently with those blacks voting as well?

The abuse of immigrants is important, but while it may reduce the reputation of the north, I have no idea why you're mentioning it in any attempt to justify the confederacy or secession. It doesn't look like the south had immigration in anywhere near the numbers seen in the north, probably due to differing economic opportunities, so I don't think it's really relevant to compare treatment of immigrants...?

Edited March 2, 2016 by Sane Young Dog Man

[blah the Prussian]

Didn't mean to sidetrack this forum with Civil War discussion, but once we're on the topic ...

Grant was not a good general. He wasn't a bad one, but he wasn't a good one either. If you look at history, Grant didn't really do much, except land the finishing blow. Sure, there was Vicksburg, but that wasn't the crux. Gettysburg? General Meade won that, and more through not being incompetent than anything else. Pickett's Charge was idiotic. If Stonewall Jackson was still alive at that battle, that probably wouldn't have happened. Thank you, General Longstreet. You bureaucrat.

I'm not going to say the South were entirely in the right, however... Lincoln won the ballot without a single Southern State! The South argued, with good reason, that they weren't being represented. The North had the populous majority, so they could abuse the massive estates of the South because they felt like it! Also, Lincoln's view on secession were ... well, look up his response from Texas seceding from Mexico, as a result of Americans settling in Texas. It's hard to say whether or not the North attacked first, because the South opened fire first ... on a Union fort in their territory. Gray area there. I will not discuss the morality of slavery, because while I certainly don't agree with the Southern practice of it, the North abused immigrants so they're n the wrong as well. Anyone who thinks the Civil War was solely about slavery really needs recheck their facts. A contributor to the tension - yes. Sole cause - no.

Does believing this qualify me as a Revisionist, that the South were more in the right then the North?

I'm inclined to agree generally about Grant, but Vicksburg was huge. It bisected the Confederacy, which basically meant it lost everything west of the Missisipi. It was every bit as decisive as Gettysburg. As for Gettysburg, is Stonewall Jackson had been alive he might even have told Lee to not be a dumbass and keep doing what he was doing. If Lee had held out for one more year, Lincoln would almost certainly have lost the election and whoever replaced him would have recognized the CSA. Instead, he risked everything on a gamble he didn't need to make and lost badly. If he hadn't lost so many men, he had a chance at beating Grant in a war of attrition. You can blame the defeat at Gettysburg on Pickett, but the mistake of fighting a battle that shouldn't have been fought was all on Lee, and that's why I find him so overrated as a general. Sherman was better, Von Moltke was better, Radetzky was better, Caxais was better, and Garibaldi was better. I won't deny that Lee was a great general on the defensive, but strategically speaking he had one job and he fucked it up.

Alright, let's go into your Confederate apologism. First, if only there was some way for states that didn't vote for the President to be represented. That sure would be great, wouldn't it? Man, I wish that there would be something that would act as a representative body for all the states to affect the federal government. What would be even better would be if there was a separate body where states would be represented equally regardless of population, so that the bigger states wouldn't just dominate politically. Man, it sure would be great if such a body existed! It's just a shame it doesn't.

All joking aside, you act like the North was some massive, monolithic body dedicated to oppressing those virtuous southerners. That simply wasn't true. It was a massive chore for Lincoln to simply ban slavery in 1865, and that was for something objectively terrible! Good luck getting the unity of purpose to do anything that would infringe on the actual rights of the people of the south. Hell, pretty much as soon as Lincoln died the North basically let the South run away with the rights of blacks, so there you go. Of course Lincoln was a hypocrite, he was a politician. This is not about the morality of Lincoln this was about the morality of succession, and whatever the North was trying to do, violent rebellion without Congress even having passed a single act that was against the South was not only traitorous, it set a dangerous precedent. But no, rebels against the lawful government (lawful is a stretch, given that the lawful head of state of America was Queen Victoria, but that's a whole different thread) fired against a fort on the territory of said government. Seems pretty clear cut.

Lastly, and this is where you lose all credibility, any attempt to draw a moral link between slavery and the treatment of immigrants is insulting to slaves, ridiculous, and academically dishonest at the same time. Were immigrants legally property? Could they be bought and sold? Separated from their families at the whims of their masters? Living in fear that maybe the master fancies their wife or daughter, and can rape them at any time, as happened quite often? Living with the knowledge that they would never, no matter how hard they worked, no matter how brilliant they were, be able to be anything other than a nigger who picks cotton? Jesus Christ. This is like those Japan apologists who say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were somehow as bad as human experimentation. I have no words.

[Moblin Major General]

American Conservatism, at its finest. I am neutral while considering all of these things, because the worst part about the Civil War was that it was inevitable. The immigrants did have to work dead end, low paying, strenuous, and often deadly jobs that not only they could be fired from, but also barred from getting other jobs in other businesses that robber barons were running. They also faced violence, racism, and predatory politicians that didn't actually help them in any way. Compare that to having to work in the 100+F degree heat (40+C if you're European) 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, with no air conditioning, and abusive GMs that could beat you if you complained, even if you were in tremendous pain. Couple that with no salary and fixed living conditions (poor living conditions at that), and there is no comparison between them. I'll play devil's advocate in that Fort Sumter should've shut down once South Carolina seceded, being that the siege was inevitable otherwise, but other than that, the war was pointless and costly (in context, World War II claimed less than half the American lives that the American Civil War did, and it took over 100 years to match the casualties of the ACW in other wars). I say that if they don't want you there, you bug out. I wish Obama would follow that advice and let the Middle East fight it out for the next century, because I know what the alternative is.