Question based on recent posts: Do you think revisionist history is bad?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Recently I've seen a few posts with negative comments about revisionist history. So, I wanted to be sure I understood the thinking on this and looked it up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_History

 

Personally, I think it is good to challenge the accepted paradigms of history with new insights based on a study of primary documents and archaeology.

 

Just because a certain viewpoint has been accepted by scholars for generations doesn't mean that that viewpoint isn't skewed by those who didn't have access to some resources that others might have today, however careful they might have been.

 

Plus, doesn't each person bring his own biases and interpretations to his work? Just look at the events of the past year and how many different interpretations there are of the same facts.

 

I find the work by modern history scholars to be very interesting. It just makes me think more and more about how we can never be absolutely sure we know the whole truth about the past. How is that bad?

 

I think revisionism only goes bad when all past viewpoints are ignored in favor of the new and unique point of view. Isn't unquestioning acceptance of traditional models of History just as bad?

 

JMHO

Edited January 23, 2010 by Virginia Dawn

[Kirch]

I completely agree that unquestioning acceptance of traditional models (in just about any discipline, actually--it has wreaked and continues to wreak havoc in science as well) is not a good thing.

 

I tend to think of "revisionist history" as an approach that whitewashes or ignores something inconvenient to the beholder (i.e. holocaust deniers, or continued Confederate sympathizers who insist that slavery really wasn't that bad). But if you're talking about trying to *take away* the whitewash and revealing facts that might be uncomfortable but are nonetheless true (like the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a die-hard segregationist or a more balanced view of Christopher Columbus)--I think that's good. It's okay to admire people from our past, but it's much better to be realistic and understand that even those who accomplish great things can have major flaws.

 

I totally agree with you that challenging accepted paradigms based on actual evidence is good and necessary. It's impossible to go beyond the bare bones facts (and not even all of those) of history without getting into interpretation and bias, so I think it's very valuable to know where the historian in question is coming from and why. And I think it's probably good (although maybe unrealistic, unless you're a graduate student in history) to examine events or eras from several different perspectives to get a bigger picture.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I tend to think of "revisionist history" as an approach that whitewashes or ignores something inconvenient to the beholder (i.e. holocaust deniers, or continued Confederate sympathizers who insist that slavery really wasn't that bad). .

 

Maybe this is where others are coming from also when they use that term. I hadn't considered that. That is really the opposite of what I am trying to say. Defining terms does help.

[K-FL]

I understand revisionist historians as re-writing history to suit their current needs. While any historian is going to have his bias, the ideal is that their at least honest about their bias. That can be the views of Richard III written by the Tudors or any current group trying to find historical basis for what they want to do & making history conform to their spin.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't identify that with the term 'revisionist history' though. I think of revisionist history as 'rewriting history to suit your ideology, regardless of the facts, and hoping that no one will notice'.

 

Sometimes looking at history accurately does involve revising it, but that is different from the popular term 'revisionist history.'

 

Also, as history accuracy is improved over time, it is quite important, I think, to also present what people believed about history in the past. So, for instance, although there are a lot of children's books and social studies literature sources that tend to glorify Native American culture these days (which is fine, generally), it is important to also teach the culture of those who interacted with them, and how they were taught to view them as well. And it is important to teach how those interactions were viewed up through about 1970, or you can't understand much of American culture and history.

 

That's just an example, and I apologize for singling out a specific ethnic group for it, but it's the one that I think would be most familiar to people.

 

The same goes for women, Jews, Arabs, Germans, French, Africans, African Americans, Asian Americans, homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc.

 

We have had such big shifts in cultural assumptions with political correctness, some of them good and some bad, that it could make a lot of old literature, political writing, history, and even science almost unintelligible to many students today.

[Georgia On My Mind]

I understand revisionist historians as re-writing history to suit their current needs. While any historian is going to have his bias, the ideal is that their at least honest about their bias. That can be the views of Richard III written by the Tudors or any current group trying to find historical basis for what they want to do & making history conform to their spin.

 

:iagree:I am talking about primarily revising history to remove the truth of our Christian heritage and have spent a number of years listening to my beloved friend "Catherine Millard" who has opened my eyes and the eyes of many to the deliberate removal of our Christian heritage in DC and other places. I have taken my middle school classes to DC to tour with her many times and had her come to our school on Christian Heritage Week to do in-service for our teachers when I was principal and teacher. She is the one who originally showed us the revised history of Jamstown and the common revisionist history of Pocahontas. She is a wealth of information and her Christian Heritage Foundation is invaluable to me. She is from South Africa and considers herself a missionary to this country. I use primarily original documents to validate even my BJU History. She showed us how even BJU and Abeka used older history books from the turn of the century that had already been revised in writing some of their history books. That is the revisionist history of which I speak. I am not talking about someone's bias, I am speaking of the deliberate rewriting of history to make it entirely secular. BTW her foundation conducts tours of DC and Williamsburg and Jamestown. We are a uniquely Christian nation and many would like for us to forget that fact.

[KidsHappen]

I just like my history to be as accurate as possible and if that means that it needs to be reconsidered and perhaps revised well so be it. In any case, revisionist history usually stirs research and debate that helps solidify the answers. I always try to look at both sides of historic issues and see which side seems to have the most proof and make the most sense.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ interesting Jefferson's version of the bible with the King James compared. Deistic?? Revisionist history to claim this a christian nation or to claim he was not achristian as the term is used today but rather a deist. Great chart comparing the two texts so you can draw your own conclusions regarding the type of beliefs that Jefferson espoused.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I don't identify that with the term 'revisionist history' though. I think of revisionist history as 'rewriting history to suit your ideology, regardless of the facts, and hoping that no one will notice'.

 

Sometimes looking at history accurately does involve revising it, but that is different from the popular term 'revisionist history.'

 

Also, as history accuracy is improved over time, it is quite important, I think, to also present what people believed about history in the past. So, for instance, although there are a lot of children's books and social studies literature sources that tend to glorify Native American culture these days (which is fine, generally), it is important to also teach the culture of those who interacted with them, and how they were taught to view them as well. And it is important to teach how those interactions were viewed up through about 1970, or you can't understand much of American culture and history.

 

That's just an example, and I apologize for singling out a specific ethnic group for it, but it's the one that I think would be most familiar to people.

 

The same goes for women, Jews, Arabs, Germans, French, Africans, African Americans, Asian Americans, homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc.

 

We have had such big shifts in cultural assumptions with political correctness, some of them good and some bad, that it could make a lot of old literature, political writing, history, and even science almost unintelligible to many students today.

 

According to the article in Wikipedia, true revisionist historians are attempting to portray history more accurately. They are not necessarily attempting to suit their own ideology or denying that actual events happened. What else would you call those who revise history to be more accurate, other than revisionists? I guess it is unfortunate that that term has come to mean bad history in the public eye. I think that would make it harder for the public to accept actual truths that come to light which do not conform to their previous education.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't like the term revisionist history, it has negative implications. I don't think there is any such thing as "accurate history." We always see history through a lens-past or present history. Every historian and every person reading history has their own biases. I think it's important to gain as much knowledge as possible, including new theories and/or facts based on new evidence. I think it's important to read history from a variety of sources so that you can get a more balanced view of history.

[FairProspects]

I don't like the term revisionist history, it has negative implications. I don't think there is any such thing as "accurate history." We always see history through a lens-past or present history. Every historian and every person reading history has their own biases. I think it's important to gain as much knowledge as possible, including new theories and/or facts based on new evidence. I think it's important to read history from a variety of sources so that you can get a more balanced view of history.

 

:iagree:

 

You could have 30 different people at an event, and they will have 30 different primary source accounts of said event. All will be "accurate" to each individual. That's why a variety of viewpoints even of the same event/period are necessary for good scholarship.

 

That said, I do think the advent (discovery? exploration?) of social history has been great. Including lower class voices and the voices of women, slaves and other traditionally ignored peoples has added a depth of perception to history that makes it a far more interesting and complete topic.

[Carol in Cal.]

According to the article in Wikipedia, true revisionist historians are attempting to portray history more accurately. They are not necessarily attempting to suit their own ideology or denying that actual events happened. What else would you call those who revise history to be more accurate, other than revisionists? I guess it is unfortunate that that term has come to mean bad history in the public eye. I think that would make it harder for the public to accept actual truths that come to light which do not conform to their previous education.

 

And a lot of revising of history is appropriate--Takaki's work, for instance, is a good first step toward integrating 'minority' history into 'mainstream' history in the United States. I do think that the writing of Christianity out of American history is inappropriate. The pendulum has swung so far that kids don't even know the Christian quotes in major historical documents, because they are left out. Ridiculous!

[Cammie]

:iagree:I am talking about primarily revising history to remove the truth of our Christian heritage and have spent a number of years listening to my beloved friend "Catherine Millard" who has opened my eyes and the eyes of many to the deliberate removal of our Christian heritage in DC and other places. I have taken my middle school classes to DC to tour with her many times and had her come to our school on Christian Heritage Week to do in-service for our teachers when I was principal and teacher. She is the one who originally showed us the revised history of Jamstown and the common revisionist history of Pocahontas. She is a wealth of information and her Christian Heritage Foundation is invaluable to me. She is from South Africa and considers herself a missionary to this country. I use primarily original documents to validate even my BJU History. She showed us how even BJU and Abeka used older history books from the turn of the century that had already been revised in writing some of their history books. That is the revisionist history of which I speak. I am not talking about someone's bias, I am speaking of the deliberate rewriting of history to make it entirely secular. BTW her foundation conducts tours of DC and Williamsburg and Jamestown. We are a uniquely Christian nation and many would like for us to forget that fact.

 

 

Interesting. I think somepeople would say that our history was rewritten to show us as a "uniquely Christian country" and that in the process the secular/masonic/pagen influences were wiped out. Just a thought.

[asta]

I find using Wikipedia as a source for a topic on revisionist history to be ironic.

[Heather in Neverland]

I find using Wikipedia as a source for a topic on revisionist history to be ironic.

 

LOL...snort...:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ interesting Jefferson's version of the bible with the King James compared. Deistic?? Revisionist history to claim this a christian nation or to claim he was not achristian as the term is used today but rather a deist. Great chart comparing the two texts so you can draw your own conclusions regarding the type of beliefs that Jefferson espoused.

 

:iagree:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

nm

Edited January 24, 2010 by Virginia Dawn

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

nm

Edited January 24, 2010 by Virginia Dawn

[lionfamily1999]

VA Dawn, I think the laughter is because Wiki gets "revised" by anyone with the time or care to do so. So, it's a little ironic, because Wiki history is revised with every visitor that hits edit, iykwIm. IOW, I think they were laughing at that, not you, iykwIm.

 

I agree with others who said revisionist implies a twisting of the facts. I would prefer dry history, without conjecture or opinion, but then most of history would be gone, wouldn't it?

 

It's a lot like the other post, about someone's ds' paper on Mice and Men. History, and what it means, really depend upon who is looking at it. If we revise time lines, because we have evidence the time lines were wrong, that's one thing. If we start to strictly demonize one group of people in the past, because it lines up with what we think today, that's wrong.

 

How's this... I don't mind editing history, when new evidence is found. However, spinning history is wrong.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

VA Dawn, I think the laughter is because Wiki gets "revised" by anyone with the time or care to do so. So, it's a little ironic, because Wiki history is revised with every visitor that hits edit, iykwIm. IOW, I think they were laughing at that, not you, iykwIm.

 

I agree with others who said revisionist implies a twisting of the facts. I would prefer dry history, without conjecture or opinion, but then most of history would be gone, wouldn't it?

 

It's a lot like the other post, about someone's ds' paper on Mice and Men. History, and what it means, really depend upon who is looking at it. If we revise time lines, because we have evidence the time lines were wrong, that's one thing. If we start to strictly demonize one group of people in the past, because it lines up with what we think today, that's wrong.

 

How's this... I don't mind editing history, when new evidence is found. However, spinning history is wrong.

 

Ah. Sometimes its hard to tell where humor is being directed in this format. I'm usually clueless when people are joking anyway. Sigh.

[lionfamily1999]

Ah. Sometimes its hard to tell where humor is being directed in this format. I'm usually clueless when people are joking anyway. Sigh.

I'm usually pretty dense with that kind of thing too. In this case, it took me a minute, but I think I "got" the joke.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I'm usually pretty dense with that kind of thing too. In this case, it took me a minute, but I think I "got" the joke.

 

Thanks.

:)

[Ame E.]

We always see history through a lens-past or present history. Every historian and every person reading history has their own biases.

 

I think it's important to know what your biases are and what it is you want your children to learn from history.

 

I think it's important to gain as much knowledge as possible, including new theories and/or facts based on new evidence. I think it's important to read history from a variety of sources so that you can get a more balanced view of history.[/B]

 

I agree..

 

Quite frankly, I think this pertains more to older children (middle school and up) than to younger ones.. We did mostly history stories and if Story of the world was out when my kids were little I would have used that, because it uses history as a way to teach certain basic skills. I would use "secular" type books like Usborne/Kingfisher for dates and pictures, but not for narrative, too much is left out that we considered important for the kids to know.

 

I think it is important for the kids to know both sides or 20 sides of each event... it's just a matter of how much time you want to spend on each period.

 

I don't think there is such a thing any more as unbiased history. I think one book will be deficient in one area, and there's where you bring in another book that concentrates on that area.

 

I think it actually is good that kids be able to identify the author's bias if he/she has one and then move on from there..

 

Sorry for the rambling nature of this answer.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Ame E.

[Denise in Florida]

The word you may be looking for is historiography. Historiography is the study of 'the study of history'. It is its own separate discipline and college major. My daughter has been interested in pursuing this.

 

Right now she is studying the expressions of the Arthurian legends as recorded in different eras of history. How the legends are told by 16th century writers vs. Victorian writers vs. modern writers/film makers.

 

History is not static, it changes as the viewer changes.

 

Hope this provides a different perspective.

[LizzyBee]

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ interesting Jefferson's version of the bible with the King James compared. Deistic?? Revisionist history to claim this a christian nation or to claim he was not achristian as the term is used today but rather a deist. Great chart comparing the two texts so you can draw your own conclusions regarding the type of beliefs that Jefferson espoused.

 

Jefferson was just one of our country's founders. His views don't negate the fact that most of the founders were Christians.

[LizzyBee]

I don't identify that with the term 'revisionist history' though. I think of revisionist history as 'rewriting history to suit your ideology, regardless of the facts, and hoping that no one will notice'.

 

Sometimes looking at history accurately does involve revising it, but that is different from the popular term 'revisionist history.'

 

 

 

:iagree: This is what I think of when I hear the term revisionist history, and by that definition, no, it's not a good thing.

[Heather in Neverland]

VA Dawn, I think the laughter is because Wiki gets "revised" by anyone with the time or care to do so. So, it's a little ironic, because Wiki history is revised with every visitor that hits edit, iykwIm. IOW, I think they were laughing at that, not you, iykwIm.

 

.

 

That is absolutely what I was laughing at...the irony of Wikipedia defining revisionist history...not at VADawn.

[Georgia On My Mind]

I find using Wikipedia as a source for a topic on revisionist history to be ironic.

:iagree:Yes, ironic indeed.

 

A practical example of using original documents would be to use Columbus's journal to learn about his voyage rather than someone's bias on the voyage in a textbook. His journal speaks for itself.

 

We also did the same with George Washington. Mason or not, this man is a praying man. I've heard and seen the info on the Mason's as well and take them with a grain of salt. No much of a conspiracy theory chaser myself. I just have the philosophy of trying my best to teach the truth of any subject I choose to teach. Some are easier than others to research and acquire documents. Most of us already have our trusted sources of information.

[lovemyboys]

......

I agree with others who said revisionist implies a twisting of the facts. I would prefer dry history, without conjecture or opinion, but then most of history would be gone, wouldn't it?

........

If we revise time lines, because we have evidence the time lines were wrong, that's one thing. If we start to strictly demonize one group of people in the past, because it lines up with what we think today, that's wrong.

 

How's this... I don't mind editing history, when new evidence is found. However, spinning history is wrong.

 

Yes. Agree with your distinctions here, which are important.

 

The pejorative "revisionist" which some current historical writing has done is putting our modern perspective and sensibilities on events and people that are centuries old.

 

Transplanted to those times, WE would be different also. We would think and feel and perceive things from our life and times, our education or lack thereof. Just as someone from the 1600s, say, would be totally perplexed by some of our assumptions and actions.

 

Trying to "influence" history from too biased a perspective is disingenuous.

 

Hollywood is particularly adept at this.

[Peek a Boo]

Jefferson was just one of our country's founders. His views don't negate the fact that most of the founders were Christians.

 

 

two sites - for both pro and con :)

 

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[Peek a Boo]

I agree with others who said revisionist implies a twisting of the facts. I would prefer dry history, without conjecture or opinion, but then most of history would be gone, wouldn't it?

....

If we revise time lines, because we have evidence the time lines were wrong, that's one thing. If we start to strictly demonize one group of people in the past, because it lines up with what we think today, that's wrong.

 

How's this... I don't mind editing history, when new evidence is found. However, spinning history is wrong.

 

:iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

That is absolutely what I was laughing at...the irony of Wikipedia defining revisionist history...not at VADawn.

:grouphug:

 

I thought as much.

 

And yay me, I'll have to print this... I can't remember the last time I was so agreed with :lol:

[tex-mex]

Interesting. I think somepeople would say that our history was rewritten to show us as a "uniquely Christian country" and that in the process the secular/masonic/pagen influences were wiped out. Just a thought.

 

:iagree: I have issue with those who leave this out... there are lots of archeological evidence out there to show America had many early explorers before Colombus and they brought with them their gods/idols. How can America be "Christian" if there were other influences? Oh. That's right. History before the white man doesn't count. Hmmm. :confused: Whoever said history is being "spun" is correct.

Edited January 25, 2010 by tex-mex

[Mrs Mungo]

Quite frankly, I think this pertains more to older children (middle school and up) than to younger ones..

 

I would *strongly* disagree with that. I've talked about it with my kids since we started reading about history. I've seen *many* kids' books that have misstatements about how Native Americans lived or about how slavery worked. There is ethnocentrism behind those sorts of statements.

 

You don't have to tell the whole bloody truth but you can say "when the author says that the Native Americans didn't understand the agricultural lifestyle-is that true? What did we learn about Jamestown and what the Native Americans taught the Europeans there? How did the Cherokees feel about the peach orchards in Georgia? What does the author want you to believe?" The author wants you to believe that removal was inevitable and justified. This is a lie. Many people fought against it, Davy Crockett thought it such an injustice that's it's one of the main reasons he quit Congress. It was wrong at the time and it's still wrong.

 

 

The word you may be looking for is historiography. Historiography is the study of 'the study of history'. It is its own separate discipline and college major. My daughter has been interested in pursuing this.

 

I agree, there are are quite a few good books on historiography that a homeschooling parent and/or older student would be well served by reading.

 

The pejorative "revisionist" which some current historical writing has done is putting our modern perspective and sensibilities on events and people that are centuries old.

 

Transplanted to those times, WE would be different also. We would think and feel and perceive things from our life and times, our education or lack thereof. Just as someone from the 1600s, say, would be totally perplexed by some of our assumptions and actions.

 

Trying to "influence" history from too biased a perspective is disingenuous.

 

Hollywood is particularly adept at this.

 

I agree and disagree with this. Hollywood is good and getting everything wrong from everyone's perspective. However, when it comes wto well-written history I'm going to disagree. There are many, many history books (including Holt) that whitewash some of the dirtier bits of our past. It's *not necessarily true* that we would be different. There were white abolitionists who fought against slavery, there were plantation owners and tobacco growers who didn't own or use slaves, there were white people who fought against Indian removal. When we pretend that certain things were more or less okay because it was a different time, that is whitewashing. Teaching otherwise is what is often called revisionist but it's not, it's actually giving more information.

 

:iagree: I have issue with those who leave this out... there are lots of archeological evidence out there to show America had many early explorers before Colombus and they brought with them their gods/idols. How can America be "Christian" if there were other influences? Oh. That's right. History before the white man doesn't count. Hmmm. :confused: Whoever said history is being "spun" is correct.

 

:iagree: