Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman123
I've read somewhere that the left-wing historians in America
|
That's an awfully influential source to be angry about. Reading things somewhere, in California I believe, is a great way to get into an intellectual debate.
There's also a difference between historical revisionism and considering a wider range of factors in making interpretations than previously.
There is also a big question about what exactly is ACCEPTED and why we have to accept it and stick to one interpretation.
There is also the fact that Wikipedia is ACCEPTED, that is, due to recent changes to its editorial policy it is now considered a quotable published source, no less so than most other publications. I know this because I work for a university. Like all sources, it is also subject to questioning and criticism - ACCEPTED or not. That is how studies of history worked, last I checked - and how all studies of anything work. You don't go with what's ACCEPTED, you take the evidence available and theorize as new interpretations become available. Time and debate will test their strength, not some vague ACCEPTABILITY.
So, anyway, is this actually a discussion or did you just want to throw some labels and indignation around to sound morally superior to some guy you heard about in California who you assume to be left-wing and who makes you angry for some reason?
Isn't it kind of interesting that you're so concerned with citation and historiography, yet run off with rants that show blatant disregard - or perhaps I should say ignorance - of both?