[Apollos]

I don't know about where the rest of you live (so many various countries and peoples represented here, part of the site's charm), but here in the US, revisionist history is RAMPANT!

I got this good article on how to recognize revisionist history:
Click Here to Read the Article

[redcarpet]

So? there's always more than one textbook. And people can write whatever they wish, the same with thinking.

[Boondock Saint]

textbooks described the Founding Fathers as being devout men and Christians who actively practiced their faith, civic policy embraced and welcomed public religious expressions. But in recent years as the same Founders have come to be portrayed as atheists, agnostics, and deists who were opposed to religious activities, public policies have similarly been reversed.

Soooo ... the problem is that the truth is coming out?

Similarly, when discussing religion in America, the Salem Witch trials are universally presented; but rarely mentioned are the positive societal changes produced by Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and dozen of other religious groups and organizations that worked for the abolition of slavery

So mentioning teh witch trials is a bad thing? It was a small part of our history, a very small part mind you. Why not mention it?

Slavery was ended due to northern aggression, no other reason. No religious group, no abolishonists, no one but Lincoln realizing he needed to muster support for the war of northern aggression.

(Also never mentioned is that the American witch trials resulted in some two dozen deaths — and were halted by religious leaders, while the European witch trials resulted in 100,000;

Well of course the trials were ended by religious leaders, they were the ones running the trials in the first place!!! But that all happened prior to the birth of the union ...

And why should Europe be demonized if one is learning of American history? There is plenty of time and opportunity to demonize (justifiably) Europeans when talking about European history ...

American Christianity at that time might not have been perfect but it was light years ahead of both the Christianity practiced in Europe and the European secularism that resulted in 40,000 executions in the French Revolution.)

Secularism is being blamed for the French Revolution now?

Meh ... that source is so full of nonsense ... I cant go on.

[redcarpet]

"the European secularism that resulted in 40,000 executions in the French Revolution.)"

Actually, that's inaccurate. It was authoritarianism. The membrs of the Committee of Public Safety thought the revolution could only be saved by executing opponents of the government, durin the conflict with Britain and Prussia, who has declared war.

Secularism had nothing to do with it.

[Boondock Saint]

Secularism had nothing to do with it.

Ah but now you have been introduced to the reactionary revisionists of the USA!

They will have you believe that Adolph Hitler was an athiest!

[redcarpet]

"They will have you believe that Adolph Hitler was an athiest!"

I don't care what people want. It is our actions that matter, not our intentions.

"now you have been introduced" No, revisionism isn't new to me.

[Attila The Nun]

Revisionist history is everywhere. There is no absolute historical truth. The truth is always lost in bias.

[Paradigm]

textbooks described the Founding Fathers as being devout men and Christians who actively practiced their faith, civic policy embraced and welcomed public religious expressions. But in recent years as the same Founders have come to be portrayed as atheists, agnostics, and deists who were opposed to religious activities, public policies have similarly been reversed.

Actually, it's both. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists. George Washington was an Episcopalian, but religion didn't play a big role in his life. Patrick Henry was a very devout Christian. The founding fathers were not a unified group who agreed on everything.

It should be noted that many churches, most notably the Baptists(ironically enough) were strong supporters of separation of church and state. This is because they recognized that it could go both ways. If the church could intervene with matters of the state, then the state could intervene with matters of the church.

[Attila The Nun]

I believe Franklin also belonged to a Hellfire club.

[Subversive Rob]

The notion of "revisionism" (in a historical context) in foolish. There is nothing wrong in disputing long-held views if you have evidence to back things up. This can be especially true because long held views can be shaped by socio-economic/geo-political concerns. Take, for instance, the Stalin period in the USSR. Most of the rabid "traditionalists" are Cold Warriors who had a vested interest in fighting "socialism" on all fronts. Just because the current revisionists take a position contrary to it does not make what they are saying wrong.

The point of the article is that education is political, hegemonic, fair enough, that's true. But notice how it defines its position as "truth" (without explicitly acknowledging its agenda) and then slanders every thing else for having "bias".

[Red_Army]

I think the worst kind of historical revisionists are the ones who say the holocaust didn't happen. Besides the obvious racism that these people have it is just plain stupid, where did those 9 million people go to? DId they just take a vacation to the moon or something? Are these revisionists just trying to cover for the nazis or do they have any real purpose?

[Spin]

Slavery was ended due to northern aggression, no other reason. No religious group, no abolishonists, no one but Lincoln realizing he needed to muster support for the war of northern aggression.

Slavery was ended so the Brits didn't join to support the South, since the British could never side with a slave trader against an anti slavery side. And those were British liberal Christians who fought slavery.

American Christianity at that time might not have been perfect but it was light years ahead of both the Christianity practiced in Europe and the European secularism that resulted in 40,000 executions in the French Revolution.)

SInce when has American Christianity been perfect?

[Tim]

A critical eye for historiography makes a good historian.

It's everywhere though - and revisionism can't escape it.

History should be taught in its entirety. We have to not only look at historical events, their causes and explanations - but also the historians and their evidence. I think saving it til degree stage - to really go into historical writing and examination - is such a waste. History is too often taught as causation and factual recitation. Though important, there's so much more. And revisionism is part of it - which can be important.

But in the end, its the antithesis of a debate. and history would be much duller without it

[Apollos]

Franklin was most certainly a deist when he wrote his biography, but when one reads his comments in the minutes of the Constitutional convention, the inescapable fact becomes clear:

"I have lived, sir, a very long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this: God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that a great empire can arise without his aid."

Slavery was abolished because of the Christian notion that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"

As for Jefferson, the man was a paradox upon a paradox wrapped in an enigma. Being devoted to the sanctity of human rights, he owned slaves. Being among those who supported Franklin's speech, he still removed all reference to miracles from his Bible.

Anyway, I just specifically enjoyed the general steps the article provides for finding the revisionism.

[Attila The Nun]

The notion of "revisionism" (in a historical context) in foolish. There is nothing wrong in disputing long-held views if you have evidence to back things up. This can be especially true because long held views can be shaped by socio-economic/geo-political concerns. Take, for instance, the Stalin period in the USSR. Most of the rabid "traditionalists" are Cold Warriors who had a vested interest in fighting "socialism" on all fronts. Just because the current revisionists take a position contrary to it does not make what they are saying wrong.

The point of the article is that education is political, hegemonic, fair enough, that's true. But notice how it defines its position as "truth" (without explicitly acknowledging its agenda) and then slanders every thing else for having "bias".

Ah, but even if the revisionism is somewhat true about Stalin, it will contain bias too. In your case, you are probably referring to a pro-Stalin point of veiw that you prefer, which is indeed biased. And, even so, any truth will be lost because people have set vewis on the world and want to withhold those veiws. You too, you veiw Stalin as a hero of the proletariate. You will not believe anything else, so you are not actually looking for truth. You are looking for what you percieve to be as truth.

[Maxim Litvinov]

It is quite strange when you see, for example, someone like Wheatcroft called a revisionist simply because he is challenging past assumptions on the basis of more complete and reliable sources.

"Revisionist" is generally thought to mean someone who 'revises the facts of history' after the event, generally because of some hidden agenda. The two problems with this idea in practice are (i) that very often critical inquiry, source materials and 'distance' are most available well after the first 'facts' about a particular subject were laid down in print and (ii) history is not simply an accumulation of facts so much as the creation of a coherent argument or narrative based on a particular perspective.

When a newspaper editor revises copy she is thought to be fulfilling a useful purpose, but where an historian attempts to correct the record or challenge prevailing (and often flawed) opinion he is pejoratively labelled a 'revisionist'.

[Apollos]

A revisionist is one who changes the perception of historical events to suit their own political agenda. For example, a public screwl textbook here in the states cites Patrick Henry's most famous speech (and my favorite speech of all times). The end of the speech in this book reads:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death!

The minutes of the convention, however, read:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the cost of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course other may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death!

The agenda this historian is espousing is secularism. I have heard other examples of puritanism, marxism, and even the US Constitution being supported by revisionism. I am not trying to attack any specific ideology here. I would just like to point out that this articles gives some great steps to finding the revisionism. Good sense is good sense no matter who is making sense.

[Paradigm]

Slavery was abolished because of the Christian notion that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"

Ah, so Christians are the only ones who believe in a creator, right?

As for Jefferson, the man was a paradox upon a paradox wrapped in an enigma. Being devoted to the sanctity of human rights, he owned slaves.

Jefferson actually believed that slavery should be abolished, but he didn't think it would do any good to free his slaves while slavery still existed as an institution. He felt slaves needed to be prepared for freedom, while instead they were conditioned for a life of servitude. Here's some quotes of his on the issue:


http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quo ... ff1290.htm