Historical Revisionism

[The Drunk Guy]

I noticed the subject mentioned in another thread...

From Allies thwarting Hitler's vision to the white native Americans of Mormonism, historical revisionism looms as a potential disaster. This thread is to bring up such instances of revisionism and discuss just how they are incorrect.

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

[Michael]

I noticed the subject mentioned in another thread...

From Allies thwarting Hitler's vision to the white native Americans of Mormonism, historical revisionism looms as a potential disaster. This thread is to bring up such instances of revisionism and discuss just how they are incorrect.

Why is historical revisionism a potential disaster?

Historically speaking, some of our earlier rounds of 'historical revisionism' have been for the better as many of the original records of history were horribly biased by Victorian era ideas.

Certainly one could try to cause problems with some outlandish or silly revisionism, but for the most part, historical revisionism is VERY common - almost as common as nationalist lies in national narratives. Indeed, more often than not, 'historical revisionism' is a correction against the blatant lies inserted into the history books on account of the ruling nationalism or politics of the day.

I'd also add that 'historical revisionism' is a rather challenging undertaking given the cultural inertia that is lined up against it.

[The Drunk Guy]

Sure, if such revision is based on evidence and not the stories of someone in a pulpit.

[Michael]

Sure, if such revision is based on evidence and not the stories of someone in a pulpit.

Yes, that may be true, but some do assert that the stories told on the pulpit are indeed based on evidence.

The historical record is not carved in stone. All historical evidence is questionable and thus open to subsequent revisions, corrections and/or future bias.

Btw, one of the most interesting 'historical revisions' I know of is in the field of anthropology involving the characterization of paleolithic humans (caveman) as 'scavengers' rather than the traditional interpretation of 'big game hunters'. This debate may not be thoroughly or completely resolved yet, but it seems to be going this direction.

Part of the day-to-day debates of history are indeed these kinds of new ideas jockeying for position vis-a-vis older well established ideas (dogmas).

Some 'new interpretations' become widely accepted over time, some don't.