Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:19 AM Dec 2011

Robert Higgs: Why Do So Many People Automatically and Angrily Condemn Historical Revisionism?

Blog from the History News Network:

Over the years, especially in writing for the general public, as opposed to my professional peers, I have been struck repeatedly by the frequency with which certain conclusions or even entire classes of conclusions elicit not merely skepticism, but angry denunciation. Again and again, I have been called a fool, a traitor, or an America-hater because of my commentaries on history and public affairs. Although I take no pleasure in these denunciations, I find myself not so much depressed by them as curious about them. I wonder why people react as they do, especially when my commentary rests—as I hope it generally does—on well-documented facts and correct logic.

I surely do not consider myself immune to errors, of course. But if my facts are incorrect, the critic has an obligation to say why my facts are incorrect and to state, or at least to point toward, the correct facts. If my logic has run off the rails, the critic has an obligation to state how I fell into fallacious reasoning. More often than not, however, the critic resorts immediately to name-calling and to wild characterizations of my statements and my person. Thus, I have often been called a socialist, a Marxist, a conservative, an apologist for corporations or the rich, a (modern left) liberal, or something else that by no stretch of the imagination properly describes me or my intellectual or ideological position.

More: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/143445.html

What do you think the proper relation between an orthodox and revisionist position ought to be? Is one approach more valid than the other? Are these terms even useful?

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

saras

(6,670 posts)
1. Human nature. They built part of their identity on the historical stories.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:20 AM
Dec 2011

Lots of good discussion of the subject, although all 15 years old, at http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html, Bill Beaty's weird science site.

Aside from that, in the non-academic world, "revisionism" has bad connotations. It implies deliberate deception and the rewriting of history for partisan purposes. It generally does not, except in the academic world, imply the correction of biased or incorrect history.

Adsos Letter

(19,459 posts)
3. That's a very good point about the emotive force of the term "revisionism"
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:47 PM
Dec 2011

and I would say that it exists within academia also, depending on the context. Gordon Wood's criticism of the work of Gary Nash regarding the American Revolution comes to mind, as well as the continuous arguments among scholars of the English Revolution; criticism of Christopher Hill's writing comes to mind in the latter context.

In any case, I certainly agree with you regarding the emotive power of the term; Lynne Cheney, as former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, went to war against Gary Nash over what she characterized as subversive revisionism in establishing national standards for teaching History.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
2. Usually the answer is a rice bowl of one sort or another.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:21 AM
Dec 2011

I'm very interested in fourth century Rome, a poorly documented and controversial period, and have followed the controversies that followed scholars who questioned the consensus view.

Some very brilliant scholars have ruined their careers disagreeing, shall we say.

Adsos Letter

(19,459 posts)
4. Revision is a fundamental part of doing History, but saras makes a very good point
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:53 PM
Dec 2011

about the emotive power of the term.

Historiography courses would be a great deal less substantive if the legitimacy of revision weren't accepted as fundamental.

The historiography of the English Civil War is a great example.

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
5. Agreed.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:18 PM
Dec 2011

The sense I get is that the shift in historiography courses is only within the last 30 years or so, after the Vietnam bitterness became a little less stinging, and now we have post-revisionism and what not.

The field of history is certainly undergoing some new and interesting theoretical changes...

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
6. Because to some people Historical Revisionism is a code phrase for
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:51 AM
Dec 2011

Blame America First, Last and Always, or blame the West First, Last and Always, for everything that has happened in the last 400 years.

Is there ego involved? Yes. But my opinion is some people approach history thought a lens of either / or.

Either you are the Oppressed or the Oppressor, there's no middle ground, and Historical Revisionists seem especially guilty of this.

Bucky

(55,334 posts)
7. Among history professionals, "revisionism" is code for Holocaust deniars
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:04 AM
Dec 2011

Higgs is a conservative historian--no reputable critic calls him a socialist, but he's with the Cato Institute, so a little bit of disingenuous victim-posturing is just part of his job requirements. Still, he's misusing the word "revisionist" here. In history, you're supposed to challenge old theories with new facts. That's what Higgs apparently likes to do--not hard, being a conservative in the mostly liberal world of the humanities. He's an iconoclast; but any historian is supposed to cast fresh light on a subject. But "revising", per se, isn't revision. It's only revisionism when you undermine facts. No one should brag about that.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
8. I didn't know that... I have NEVER understood
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:13 AM
Dec 2011

How Holocaust Deniers can can engage in such behavior with a straight face. Since so much evidence was found, so many Jews disappeared, the Nazis liked to keep records on everything, it's like Deniers are living in a parallel universe.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
9. Oh I have on my shelf the first book of this...
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:19 PM
Dec 2011

It's called Derrota Mundial...worLd defeat. It was published in pretty cheap paper in 1953 iirc, too lazy to go to the shelf.

It was also published in Spain...most of the usual lies started there.

You might ask why I have it there? My dad bought it, angry and all, when it went on sale...he was a survivor. I toyed with the idea of taking it to the university library. It is a historic artifact actually, even if not in a good way. Oh and pretty penny coud be made on eBay, which is a sad comment.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
12. For most people "history" is just a kind of mythology.
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:51 PM
Dec 2011

I run into this a lot with regards to FDR. Greatest Generation historians him into a god-like figure and hero, when in reality he ran in 1932 as a centrist and he was always opposed to Keynesianism. He was forced to shift to the left because of political activism.

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
13. I kinda think the economists overplay their hand...
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:14 PM
Dec 2011

In describing Roosevelt as "Keynesian" because by the nature of their discipline they box complex realities into simple arguments. Roosevelt was Roosevelt, he did not need John Maynard Keynes to tell him what needed to be done.



zipplewrath

(16,690 posts)
14. Different kinds of "history"
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:24 AM
Dec 2011

The expression "history" is a bit like saying "math". It covers alot of different activities.

Much of what passes for historical dialogue is really nothing more than mythology, or parables. Stories intended to pass on a set of cultural concepts, mostly having to do with morality.

Then there is in effect "industrial" history. It is intended to document a period of time, or a particular process (the evolution of the car industry). It is often written with great big blinders on, only making passing reference to events outside of the topic. Its primary purpose is to document in the same manner as an accountant, all the columns and rows have to add up.

There is political history, which has little to do with history at all and mostly has to do with creating "narratives".

Then there is academic history. It tends to be that dry exploration of documentation, oral history, and a touch of anthropology, which has the characteristic of being fairly devoid of judgement.

Of course, then there is the worst, Hollywood history, which is mostly just creative writing with a historical outline for a story.

"Revisionist" history is generally a discussion of political history, with a touch of industrial mixed in on occasion when ones founder has a less than glorious personal life.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
16. Generally because they are attached to some historical dogma or other.
Thu Feb 2, 2012, 08:49 AM
Feb 2012

So generally the basis is ideological (political) or territorial (academic).

I don't think those terms are useful, because they are already a biased nomenclature in which some theories are accepted and others are not, some theories are authoritative and others are not; whereas I submit that a new theory that is better supported ought be the accepted one. But of course, that is still a matter of opinion.

Let's face it, if you are an angry historian, you are not showing good historical temperament.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»American History»Robert Higgs: Why Do So M...