Is historical revisionism wrong?

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#1

Various threads have dismissive comments about something being revisionist or someone being a revisionist.

Commonly this seems to be understood to refer to extremes like Holocaust deniers e.g. http://www.revisionists.com/revisionism.html, but strictly, on its non-pejorative meaning, historical revisionism means no more than offering views which contradict mainstream or long established historical interpretations.

Nonetheless, even dispassionate assessments tend to focus on the Holocaust denial aspect, such as http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

The historical method, or lack of it, in the Holocaust denial type of revisionism is neatly derided here http://www.revisionism.nl/

But if we reject unorthodox opinions, don’t we just fail to leave our minds open to alternative interpretations of the past? Such as http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/boyd-tonkin-the-past-that-we-believe-in-is-to-others-a-myth-800230.html

Is the hostility to ‘revisionist’ or unorthodox historical opinions much different to the same sort of hostility that saw ‘revisionists’ like Galileo charged with heresy and the germ theory rejected by orthodox scientists and countless other farces when mainstream science was challenged by people whose opinions are now part of mainstream science despite being ridiculed at the time?

#2

No it’s not wrong, it’s necessary, but only if evidence supports it. History isn’t an exact empirical science and we all know that it has been manipulated many times in the past. But when there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of an event like the holocaust and people deny it, they’re not revisionists in the strict meaning of the term but simply stupid. It had always been the doubtful minds that created great progress for mankind, people who didn’t accept the existing explanations as absolute truth. It’s important to always question dogmas, particularly in science, to which I would count history as well and unfortunatly I see a trend of mental incrustation our society. Imho our critical minds have degenerated in the past decades.

#3

Revisionism is absolutely essential as views of historical events have shifted, though usually not radically, by historians that have altered the perceptions of what took place in a given event. Using newer technologies or recently opened archives can be vital to shedding light on what happened in a given time and space. However, revisionism should not be construed nor confused with movements that use the term “revisionism” merely as a euphemism for a conspiratorial view of history. One that is unsupported by facts and documentation. Some so called revisionists are little more than propagandists that are shaping their historical views to their ideological or nationalistic ones.

The given example of Holocaust denial or the 9/11 Inside Job/“Truth Movement” are both cases in which their purveyors make claims of wide conspiracies perpetrated by thousands if not tens of thousands of people. All while selectively making claims and arguments that can easily be deconstructed with facts and research.

#4

That was a good speech (it should be posted on many sites/threads), I have nothing to add :slight_smile:

_