The study of history

[monkspider]

JohnT- In addition to claiming to be communist, North Korea has been claiming to be a Democratic People's Republic for fifty years as well, does that make it so?
In regards to your "one book" comment, I'm sure that more than one book has made such an assertion. And, even if it were only one book, remember that at one time only book once claimed there were silly things such as a Social Contract and so forth.

[JohnT]

Hmmm. I thought that Communism was an economic theory, and not a political one, i.e., it would be theoretically possible (though not very bloody likely) to have a Democratic gov't with a Communist economy.

The Social Contract wasn't proffered to explain away past evils, though.

[Boris Godunov]

My beef is that "revisionist history" has become a catch phrase for anyone who just doesn't like the implications of historical research that uncovers new facts on issues that change the perspective. The Columbus issue is a perfect example. Scholarly historical research has debunked many of the Columbus myths and show him to be a person not to be lionized. But traditionalists immediatly cry out "revisionism" and staunchly defend the bland, wildly inaccurate text book histories to prop up this idea he was some brave, larger-than-life hero.

Never mind that the real "revisionism," in terms of creating a false history to suit some agenda, is the traditional history. The same is true for a lot of the text book histories on the American Revolution and the Civil War.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hmmm. I thought that Communism was an economic theory, and not a political one, i.e., it would be theoretically possible to have a Democratic gov't with a Communist economy.

Mostly true (communism can be interpreted as more than just an economic theory though), but you miss my point. I said that North Korea has been claiming to be Democratic for the past fifty years. Surely you don't think that N. Korea is democratic, so therefore, you can see that a certain monniker that a country attaches to itself means little. That was sort of where I was going with that arguement.

The Social Contract wasn't proffered to explain away past evils, though.

I wouldn't call not treating the USSR as an example of communism "explaining away past evils". The USSR was flawed, although not necessarily evil. It was merely a shade of grey, much as the USA is, and has always been. Both the USA and the USSR had their good points and bad points, but I digress.

In any event, the fact remains that even though a truth may be unpopular in certain society, in a certain era, that makes it no less the truth.I used the example of the social contract because it was something that was considered absurd at the time, but today it is something that most people accept.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My beef is that "revisionist history" has become a catch phrase for anyone who just doesn't like the implications of historical research that uncovers new facts on issues that change the perspective. The Columbus issue is a perfect example. Scholarly historical research has debunked many of the Columbus myths and show him to be a person not to be lionized. But traditionalists immediatly cry out "revisionism" and staunchly defend the bland, wildly inaccurate text book histories to prop up this idea he was some brave, larger-than-life hero.

Never mind that the real "revisionism," in terms of creating a false history to suit some agenda, is the traditional history. The same is true for a lot of the text book histories on the American Revolution and the Civil War.

Exactly, Boris.

Revisionist history -- before Anglophiles twisted it into a negative connotation -- simply means that all parts of world history has more than one perspective.

And revisionist history involves undoing myths, one of which you mentioned, Boris. So I don't see why Anglophiles continue to huff and puff about revisionist history until they get red in the face.

[Chris 62]

Actually, I agree and disagree, as odd as that sounds.

To use Boris' example of Columbus, many people denigrate him and his achevment completely.

This is an insult to history.

No, Columbus did not discover America (since there were people living there already, that is obvious), what he did do was open a whole continent's eyes (Europe), begin a long process of shifting the world economy away from the middle east, and open up two other continents to colonists from Europe.

I know, many a bloody trail was to follow, but many places Europeans settled were just wilderness, and it's important to remember the "native" wern't always friendly either (and please, spare me they were defending themselves thing, a study of many American cultres shows they are no different from any other in the world, they had their good and bad, there conquerors and peaceful peoples).

South America today is almost 100% of Iberian decent nowadays, that is a historical milestone.

Would they have done better if left alone?
Perhaps, perhaps not.

The fact is, through history, NOBODY was left alone, human history is a long tale of one people attacking another.
To sudenly take bits and pieces and say "this is moral, this isn't" is ludicrous, because it fails to recon with both the time period and the nature of man's development.

I'm sorry to say MrFun, but you will find that all the races of man color their history, trying to say history is recorded only by white oppressors is, quite frankly, tripe.

As for revisionist, I see it quite often, it's done by people that try to re-explain motivations of people in the past, and often ignores first hand accounts, conditions, and prevailing attitudes of the periods in question.

If you want to be self loathing, that is your right, but the white man has but a short period of historical dominence, to feel bad about past wrongs is your right, but don't try to say they were the only ones, that ignores historical truth.

[Boris Godunov]

The Columbus stuff isn't about poo-pooing the significance of his acheivement, it's about teaching the facts about his life, not mythical claptrap. School history texts teach blatantly erroneous facts about Columbus that serve no purpose except as propaganda for the man. We don't know where he was born and to who, yet text books repeat myths that he was born in Genoa, or that he was the son of a pauper, or he was the son of a noble, etc. Text books repeat the untruth that he was the only person arguing the world was round and all the other ignorant people thought it was flat. The truth is, at that time most people accepted the world was round, especially the ruling classes he would have been dealing with. Text books teach he was sailing for the glory of God or some such rubbish, when he specifically said in his diaries his two goals: gold and slaves. Text books like to say his crew mutinied and wanted to turn back, but the records show the opposite is true--he wanted to turn back, and his crew persuaded him to keep going. And of course, texts gloss over Columbus's own murder of the Arawak Indians, hunting them down with packs of dogs. This was after he had threatened to massacre their entire population unless they spent their days and nights looking for gold to bring back to the Spaniards.

Was Columbus's discovery important to world history? Certainly, but that doesn't mean we need to build up a bunch of myths to lionize a figure who is pretty undeserving of them.

[Lord Merciless]

What do you think how Cortez managed to topple the Aztec empire? He didn't just go in with his superior weaponry and conquered all these peaceful, but primitive tribes. He owned his victory as much to the help from the Natives as his weapons. The Aztecs were one of the most ruthless and bloodythirsty civilizations(Only Assyrians and Mongols were comparable) around. They thouroughly pissed off every surrounding tribes by sacrificing thousands of them each year. In the final siege of Tenochtitlan, a few thousands of Spaniards were joined by hundreds of thousands of native tribes, mostly Tlaxcalans.

[Chris 62]

I don't disagree Boris, you make some excellent points in fact.

Columbus and his time are of immense importance to Western history, but as you point out, many people over the years add things, like some you mention.

Another example is the life of George Washington, there was a fellow, I forget his name, who wanted to write his biography, but lacking facts, simply made things up!
Like the cherry tree thing for example.

I'm all for eliminating those kinds of things, but it is difficult to accomplish.

[Boris Godunov]

Don't forget the smallpox, LM! Bio warfare at its best...er, worst...er...

[JohnT]

You know, I think too many people have the idea that they were lied to as kids because some of the things they were taught in the 2nd grade weren't as clear cut as the teacher made them out to be.

This isn't revisionism people, it's psychology. Or, better yet, it's childhood. The fact is that kids do NOT see things in "shades of gray" nor understand that there are two sides to any story until puberty, at best*. There has been psychological study after psychological study detailing this... but the easily offended tend not to notice and would rather whine about "being lied to as kids."

*Another thing that puberty does is give one an insufferable idea of their own importance and originality, so that what also happens is that when kids finally are able to keep two apparently contradictory ideas in their heads, they KNOW the one that fits their personal prejudices are "correct" - and they spend yet another 10+ years seeing only one side of the issue.

You see it here all the time.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Don't forget the smallpox, LM! Bio warfare at its best...er, worst...er...

Yeah, that's also part of it. However, diseases were not used as weapons, at least not initially. Remember, Aztec Empire fell only 2 years after it made contact with Spaniards.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Yeah, that's also part of it. However, diseases were not used as weapons, at least not initially. Remember, Aztec Empire fell only 2 years after it made contact with Spaniards.

I seem to recall the Spaniards deliberately dumping the bodies of those who had died of small pox into the city's water supply.

[Lord Merciless]

I think the teaching of history has always been subject to tainted opinions, especially if one side has some direct involvements in an event.

If you want to know about unbiased history between Europeans and Native Americans, you should probably get your source from Asian countries, such as Japan.

If you want to know about unbiased history of China, maybe you should pick up the Cambridge History of China series.

If you want to know about unbiased history of American Civil War, maybe you should read book written by Europeans.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I seem to recall the Spaniards deliberately dumping the bodies of those who had died of small pox into the city's water supply.

It still doesn't change the fact that Aztecs were a brutal civilization and Spaniards had more help from Natives than they needed.

Revisionist views that Native Americans were peaceful, nice, and primitive were completely bullsh!t. Unfortunately, that view is held true by too many.