The study of history

[MrFun]

It really irks me when people use the words, "revisionist history" to knock down serious scholarly work.

History is not a static field of study -- it changes when historians discover new information, or when new perceptions of a specific historical subject is realized.

In fact, I would hope that history is revised over the generations. History used to to be perceived through the lenses of white supremacy and Western imperialism.

Fortunately, history has been legitimately revised to include other peoples, and other cultures outside the Western world.

History, like all other scholarly fields of study, is not static -- it changes with new information, and new perceptions. Revised history is not bad -- it's proof that we have gained new information and new insight.

How would our society function if people complained about "revisionist medicine" just because new information or new perceptions are realized?

Using the words "revisionist history" to knock serious scholarly work, is an insult to all respectable historians out there, who know that their field of study is not static.

[JohnT]

Revisionist History: Declaring that there hasn't been a Communist government on this planet. Possibly the biggest revision of the past decade, far far more so than Holocaust deniers.

Please, Mr. Fun, what exactly is being revised?

[MrFun]

What has been revised, is doing away with the distorted history through the lenses of white supremacy and Western imperialism.

Did you know that on Earth, there are non-Western cultures and peoples? That there is more than one perspective in history, other than Western civilization?

[Bosh]

Revisionist History: Declaring that there hasn't been a Communist government on this planet.

That's not revisionist history, just defintion juggling.

[Starchild]

Bah, history. You can't even do a proper controlled variable, repeatedable experiment. Back! Back I say!

[orange]

someone bash your term paper, Mr.Fun?

[JohnT]

And no, this isn't off-topic.

Originally posted by MrFun
What has been revised, is doing away with the distorted history through the lenses of white supremacy and Western imperialism.

Did you know that on Earth, there are non-Western cultures and peoples? That there is more than one perspective in history, other than Western civilization?

You know, I have an adorable little 15-month girl who is on the verge of talking. About a month ago, Santa gave her a "Barney" doll which she loves. When she saw it, she started singing the first three notes to the Barney song ("I Love You" (or "This Old Man" for those who don't know Barney)). She has been doing this for about a month now, just repetitively singing:

Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH.

We are... ALL of us... are ready for a new tune.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by JohnT
Revisionist History: Declaring that there hasn't been a Communist government on this planet.

How can something be revisionist when it is literally true?



There have been communist societies, it's just that the ones that the reactionary revisionists like to hold up models of communism that aren't.

BTW, I agree with you completely Mr. Fun.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Boshko

That's not revisionist history, just defintion juggling.

... and the difference being... ?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by monkspider


How can something be revisionist when it is literally true?



There have been communist societies, it's just that the ones that the reactionary revisionists like to hold up models of communism that aren't.

Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by JohnT


Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH. Dah-da-DAH.

Singing Barney tunes doesn't make your position any more feasible.

[JohnT]

Neither does repeating the same lies over and over.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT



... and the difference being... ?

That everyone has a right to re-define things. There are no set definitions in history, which is part of MrFun's point. If some historian writes a book in which they eloquently explain why none of the regimes that have called thmselves communist deserve that monicker, then the thing to do is not dismiss them as "revisionist", but argue their point, if one is up to it.

As for Holocaust denial: that is not revisionist history: its simply historical ignorance, trying to overlook or deny facts (by fact I do not mean the 'meanings' of the Holocaust, simply things like physical evidence, documents, newreels, testimony of participant, court records, so forth and so on).

[JohnT]

GePap: But the fact that hundreds of millions, even billions of people asserted that they were Communist for over 70 years is irrelevant because 1 book says "no"? Puh-leeze. I am not a child: I know better than that.

Eloquently written bullshit is still bullshit.

[JCG]

The problem is that many people tend to "revise" history not from new information and scholarship, but from their own serious lack of information and scholarship.

IE: People who say that the URSS caused the utter defeat & surrender of Japan long before the U.S. ever did, and that therefore Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just imperialist formalities.

Btw, you may argue that those governments were not "perfectly" Communist, but then again "perfect" communist societies aren't currently possible on a large scale.