Left Wing Historical Revisionism

Patchman123 · 02-01-12, 08:25 PM

Anyone on this forum here notice about left-wing revisionism in history dealing with the Pacific War revising it to make America the bad guy and the aggressor and racist against the Japanese and the Japanese as innocent victims and minimizing Japanese atrocities and their racist attitudes towards Chinese, Filipinos, and whites?

I've read somewhere that the left-wing historians in America, California I believe, present the ACCEPTED view of history of the Pacific War where Japan is the aggressor, as racist conservative history and that it is preventing them from writing their blatant garbage about America that they write, from being written, by a history tainted by nationalist conservatives that are reactionary and don't know nationalism from patriotism. Their view of history that holds on to the ACCEPTED view, will be labeled pseudohistory by Wikipedia and labeling the conservative view as wrong, even though the World War II Japanese were a brutal bunch of people, no one's gonna dispute that, right?

The far-left sickens me to death! Is there anybody who shares my opinion about this outrage?

It isn't pseudohistory when they do it, because they write and interpret the history. I regrard the aformentioned article on Wikipedia as a joke because Wikipedia is a revisionist encyclopedia, not peer-reviewed by historans and their presenting of anyone who doesn't do that as pseudohistory not accepted by "academics" (Wikipedia is NOT accepted by academics) as a complete joke. It's a total joke that highlights the tea kettle being called black, that highlights how Wikipedia's pseudohistory article is a joke because Wikipedia does not use historiographic methods, it is not accepted by academia and their history articles are regarded as fake history by professional histories because they aren't well-written or properly cited. That's why the pseudo stuff on their article is a total joke, but someone has to push their stupid agenda through. Nationalist history is now pseudo-history, Really? The history of victorious nationalists that wrote histories of entire nations and helped shape their consciousness and histories is pseudo-history? What a joke!

I love the military historians better than the civilian ones because the military historians are often more objective in their presentations and interpretations that these militant liberal civilian historians. The military historians better review the evidence. If only Samuel Eliot Morrison were alive today, he'd flail these people alive and expose them as the frauds they are .

Wikipedia is a revisionist's dream because it can be edited with all kinds of sensational claims, despite the article never properly defining "sensational claims" and all that and to me it silences the writing of history, where historians make sensational claims aming fellow historians to properly discuss the evidence and write the history, and labeling claims as pseudo-history to be silences the writing of history, and think it disgusts me.

TLAM Strike · 02-01-12, 08:48 PM

If your using Wikipedia as your primary source for history: Your Doing it Wrong.

Two semesters ago I took a course on WWII History (got an 'A' BTW) and we focused an entire class on Japanese brutality incl. some very graphic pictures.

CCIP · 02-01-12, 08:49 PM

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?

razark · 02-01-12, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman123

I've read somewhere that the left-wing historians in America, California I believe...

http://xkcd.com/285/

Patchman123 · 02-01-12, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

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?

I have no disregard for historiography, I do not know where you come up with such a conclusion. I am sick of the revisionist crap on there bashing America and everything. I use proper historiography of cited sources. I am not fully aware of their changes in editorial policy. I do not know anything about it, though I am aware that many still do not accept it in universities. I do not show any disregard for historiography, although Wikipedia seems to with its "sensational claims" I am aware that history is rewritten based on the evidence, but there is also the traditional view of history of the traditional historians that don't change unless they have to.

I do not believe that America commited aggression against Japan during the Pacific War, although both sides were racist. I do not know where you come up with me disregarding historiography. I regard PROPER historiography, based on actual evidence and not emotional claims as proper to the teaching of history and I believe furthermore, that if history is written correctly and preserve it for all time, we are properly utilizing it, but history is not a tool for political propaganda and shouldn't be used as such.

I do not disregard historiography, although Wikipedia does because to do so is foolish and using historiography to force through a message of someone's agenda is to me wrong and calling anyone else that adheres to the accepted view of history of America as a victim of Japanese aggression during the war, and America not commiting aggression against Japan, as wrong, is to me flies in the face of the evidence. You can rewrite history, as long as you do it CORRECTLY!

OKAY! I do not like history being used as a tool of propaganda. You're up in Canadian universities, they tend to be more liberal than American universities in Wikipedia, so your view is of course different. I do not see where you come up with me disregarding historiography because I want to use my brain to come with claims based on what I see and feel based on the evidence that's there, not make up stories about primitive peoples coming into contact extraterrestrials.

I regard historiography as correct based on the books I write as correct because it was properly written by historians.

I see these left-wing revisionists and they sicken me and I do not like their views. There are varying interpretations of history and sensational claims that one makes based on how they feel about history, which Wikipedia does not bother to define.

I do not like the whole article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is still crap in my opinion.

I am tired of people who say that I disregard historiography because I do not agree with someone's agenda or because they want to paint me as simple-minded and stupid and not inclned to reason, as stupid because he watches TV documentaries and do not do things his way and because he is too stupid because he doesn't have training when in fact, history is about interpreting the facts and making a judgement, based on the evidence.

You're of the revisionist types over the traditional types. There a revisionist school that I am aware of.

I write things based on the logical gathering of evidence and sources, and I do sometimes based sensational claims, but this is based on interpretation of what I see based on a thought that I have, that is another way of looking at it, that isn't false history or whatever.

We agree to disagree. Let's put it like that.

CCIP · 02-01-12, 09:47 PM

I'm not sure if I agree to disagree. I have respect for historiography and I do not believe America committed aggression against Japan. In fact I think most claims that have been made of that are pretty ludicrous, even if it's true that Japan did act partially because they were backed into a corner. But that doesn't constitute aggression, and those who say that aren't making emotional claims - they're simply stretching the evidence.

But...

Quote:

I regard PROPER historiography, based on actual evidence and not emotional claims as proper to the teaching of history and I believe furthermore, that if history is written correctly and preserve it for all time, we are properly utilizing it, but history is not a tool for political propaganda and shouldn't be used as such.

Then why are you doing this yourself?

I mean, you're making an emotional claim about "the left" and you're speaking on terms obviously meant do disparage political positions of fictitious parties that supposedly represent it, and doing so in terms that are filled with very telling sloganized language - aka propaganda. Please check your bias at the door if you want to discuss academic norms, otherwise you'll be taken as engaging in nothing but political baiting, which I believe you currently are.

Sailor Steve · 02-01-12, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman123

I've read somewhere that the left-wing historians in America, California I believe, present the ACCEPTED view of history of the Pacific War where Japan is the aggressor, as racist conservative history and that it is preventing them from writing their blatant garbage about America that they write, from being written, by a history tainted by nationalist conservatives that are reactionary and don't know nationalism from patriotism.

You lost yourself right there. You read somewhere...? Do you remember where? Can you cite this? If not, how does anyone know what they're really teaching? If you can't quote what they're actually saying then you're arguing against nothing, and for nothing.

Hottentot · 02-02-12, 12:01 AM

Past --> Researcher --> History. You can't make it a two-step process.

Otherwise what CCIP has said is spot on.

Edit: this thread has great tags.

Gorduz · 02-02-12, 03:44 AM

I thought of getting into the debate, but CCIP is saying all the right things so

Oberon · 02-02-12, 04:10 AM

Have I noticed it?

No

Does it happen?

Yes, particularly in some Japanese schools in regards to Nanking.

Do I like it?

NO

Can I do anything about it?

No

Hottentot · 02-02-12, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Does it happen?

Yes, particularly in some Japanese schools in regards to Nanking.

Don't get me started on school history, regardless of the country.

02-02-12, 05:01 AM

Is it silly season already?

Quote:

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?

Didn't CAPS LOCK sink the ship already without quibbling about where the fatal blow was struck?

Quote:

Edit: this thread has great tags.

You certainly know exactly what to expect from them

kraznyi_oktjabr · 02-02-12, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Edit: this thread has great tags.

Agreed. What puzzles me on them is what "tacos" means in this context?

Skybird · 02-02-12, 05:50 AM

Rewriting history is something the EU is heavily engaged with, too, especially the Germans. It is not so much the Third World War, and Nazi Germany, but how Islam has build the modern European world, and for what it all may claim credits for - almost nothing there that Islam is not being given credit for, even modern human rights and woman liberation movements. Not to mention the very one-sided story telling about Grenada, the Islamic occupation of Spain, France, parts Italy and Greece and the Balkans, and the wars of the crusades. Two years ago a whole volume of German history school books were sacked just in time before they were released inb their first edition. The ammount of forging and distorting they gave examples for raised the hairs in my neck.

George Orwell, 1984. Control of language. Deleting history. Anyone remember? The best censor, the best controller is the one implanted into our heads when we are kids. That makes the perfectly obedient, masterminded citizen who voluntarily calls dictatorship "freedom", aggressor "victim", and cultural mutilation "social improvement". Since any sense for national identity has been whipped and beaten out of German mentality after WWII, Germans are especially prone to this, more than any other people in Europe.

Penguin · 02-02-12, 05:53 AM

As a feminist, I am sit-pissed off that I have heard that every man (and woman) calls it history. This is patriarchalic, chauvinistic male revisionism. Woman have contributed a lot to history: Elizabeth Báthory, Eva Braun, Angela Merkel, etc.

That's why I think every teacher (and teacheress) should call it herstory.
I am on your side, sisters!

(and brothers)

02-01-12, 08:25 PM	#1
Patchman123 Electrician's Mate Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Cochranton, Pennsylvania Posts: 139 Downloads: 226 Uploads: 2	Left Wing Historical Revisionism Anyone on this forum here notice about left-wing revisionism in history dealing with the Pacific War revising it to make America the bad guy and the aggressor and racist against the Japanese and the Japanese as innocent victims and minimizing Japanese atrocities and their racist attitudes towards Chinese, Filipinos, and whites? I've read somewhere that the left-wing historians in America, California I believe, present the ACCEPTED view of history of the Pacific War where Japan is the aggressor, as racist conservative history and that it is preventing them from writing their blatant garbage about America that they write, from being written, by a history tainted by nationalist conservatives that are reactionary and don't know nationalism from patriotism. Their view of history that holds on to the ACCEPTED view, will be labeled pseudohistory by Wikipedia and labeling the conservative view as wrong, even though the World War II Japanese were a brutal bunch of people, no one's gonna dispute that, right? The far-left sickens me to death! Is there anybody who shares my opinion about this outrage? It isn't pseudohistory when they do it, because they write and interpret the history. I regrard the aformentioned article on Wikipedia as a joke because Wikipedia is a revisionist encyclopedia, not peer-reviewed by historans and their presenting of anyone who doesn't do that as pseudohistory not accepted by "academics" (Wikipedia is NOT accepted by academics) as a complete joke. It's a total joke that highlights the tea kettle being called black, that highlights how Wikipedia's pseudohistory article is a joke because Wikipedia does not use historiographic methods, it is not accepted by academia and their history articles are regarded as fake history by professional histories because they aren't well-written or properly cited. That's why the pseudo stuff on their article is a total joke, but someone has to push their stupid agenda through. Nationalist history is now pseudo-history, Really? The history of victorious nationalists that wrote histories of entire nations and helped shape their consciousness and histories is pseudo-history? What a joke! I love the military historians better than the civilian ones because the military historians are often more objective in their presentations and interpretations that these militant liberal civilian historians. The military historians better review the evidence. If only Samuel Eliot Morrison were alive today, he'd flail these people alive and expose them as the frauds they are . Wikipedia is a revisionist's dream because it can be edited with all kinds of sensational claims, despite the article never properly defining "sensational claims" and all that and to me it silences the writing of history, where historians make sensational claims aming fellow historians to properly discuss the evidence and write the history, and labeling claims as pseudo-history to be silences the writing of history, and think it disgusts me.

02-01-12, 08:48 PM	#2
TLAM Strike Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Rochester, New York Posts: 8,633 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 6	If your using Wikipedia as your primary source for history: Your Doing it Wrong. Two semesters ago I took a course on WWII History (got an 'A' BTW) and we focused an entire class on Japanese brutality incl. some very graphic pictures. __________________

02-02-12, 12:01 AM	#8
Hottentot Sea Lord Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: My private socialist utopia of Finland Posts: 1,918 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Past --> Researcher --> History. You can't make it a two-step process. Otherwise what CCIP has said is spot on. Edit: this thread has great tags. __________________ Хотели как лучше, а получилось как всегда.

02-02-12, 03:44 AM	#9
Gorduz Engineer Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Norway Posts: 210 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I thought of getting into the debate, but CCIP is saying all the right things so __________________ 21. MTB skv. Attacks without warning.

02-02-12, 05:50 AM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,604 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Rewriting history is something the EU is heavily engaged with, too, especially the Germans. It is not so much the Third World War, and Nazi Germany, but how Islam has build the modern European world, and for what it all may claim credits for - almost nothing there that Islam is not being given credit for, even modern human rights and woman liberation movements. Not to mention the very one-sided story telling about Grenada, the Islamic occupation of Spain, France, parts Italy and Greece and the Balkans, and the wars of the crusades. Two years ago a whole volume of German history school books were sacked just in time before they were released inb their first edition. The ammount of forging and distorting they gave examples for raised the hairs in my neck. George Orwell, 1984. Control of language. Deleting history. Anyone remember? The best censor, the best controller is the one implanted into our heads when we are kids. That makes the perfectly obedient, masterminded citizen who voluntarily calls dictatorship "freedom", aggressor "victim", and cultural mutilation "social improvement". Since any sense for national identity has been whipped and beaten out of German mentality after WWII, Germans are especially prone to this, more than any other people in Europe. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-02-12, 04:10 AM	#10
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Have I noticed it? No Does it happen? Yes, particularly in some Japanese schools in regards to Nanking. Do I like it? NO Can I do anything about it? No

02-02-12, 05:53 AM	#15
Penguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Rheinische Republik Posts: 3,322 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	As a feminist, I am sit-pissed off that I have heard that every man (and woman) calls it history. This is patriarchalic, chauvinistic male revisionism. Woman have contributed a lot to history: Elizabeth Báthory, Eva Braun, Angela Merkel, etc. That's why I think every teacher (and teacheress) should call it herstory. I am on your side, sisters! (and brothers)