Left Wing Historical Revisionism

[Hottentot]

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.

Is it silly season already?

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?

Edit: this thread has great tags.

You certainly know exactly what to expect from them

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Edit: this thread has great tags.

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

[Skybird]

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.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Sky... should we here in Finland start developing MRBMs to deal with Germany?

[Penguin]

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)

Well I did wonder if this topic could get any more craziness added, I thought not....but I underestimated Skybird and his thing about the EU and about Islam

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Rewriting history is something the EU is heavily engaged with, too, especially the Germans.

There is a huge difference between politicians (EU) doing politics and historians writing history. Can you recommend me an academic research written by a historian which is doing what you mentioned?

Originally Posted by Penguin

As a feminist, I am sit-pissed off that I have heard that every man (and woman) calls it history.

[snip]

I think every teacher (and teacheress) should call it herstory.

The sad thing here is that I have heard a lecturer (not on a history class, but still) in my university genuinely wondering out loud exactly what you just parodied there. My forehead has never been that close to any table as it was then.

[Catfish]

Left wing revisionism.
9/11 1973 anyone ?

Don't answer, i'm just trolling

There is a huge difference between politicians (EU) doing politics and historians writing history. Can you recommend me an academic research written by a historian which is doing what you mentioned?

Careful, last time he was asked about "academic research" there was a link provided which went to some Canadian based Indian religious extremists who support blowing up airliners in mid atlantic

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Left wing revisionism.
9/11 1973 anyone ?

Don't answer, i'm just trolling

Chilean coup d'état?

No I'm not going to argue about it.

[the_tyrant]

You know, I don't care much about historical revisionism
it happens everywhere, and history is open to different people's interpretation. Especially since I look at many different historical events from a different perspective than most people.



however, I am not a big fan of manipulation science for political means

these come to mind (sorry for the wikipedia links, wikipedia is my best friend):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

[Bilge_Rat]

Slightly off topic, but I find the increasing use of WIKIPEDIA as a historical source to be a disturbing trend. When you know a subject because you have researched it in reputable books and you then compare with Wikipedia, it is amazing to see the distortions and outright lies that get posted.

The worst example for me is the so called "Chenogne massacre" which has its own entry and is often listed as an example of a massacre of german POWs by allied troops. I have been reading about WW2 for 40+ years and had never heard of this until it started popping up on the internet a few years ago. I grew suspicious when I first read it and some months ago I took the time to track down all the sources listed in wikipedia and to do my own research.

As far as I can tell, it never happened and is a totally made up internet event. There is no eyewitness testimony or any other proof that the massacre ever occurred, yet it has its own wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

All the "sources" listed lead to other authors who quote other authors, none of which list any references to back up their claims.

[tater]

I haven't seen much of it in serious military history, frankly. Some popular military histories written by journalists I've read have had a clear political axe to grind (most left, but some right, as well), though.

It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however (In Denial is a great history/historiography by Haynes and Klehr responding to ideological attacks against their work on Soviet espionage and influence in the US (and the culpability of the CPUSA). They included studies of articles in academic history journals, and positivity vs negativity WRT the CCCP in papers and found after the late 60s, negativity virtually disappeared in academic papers, or was always heavily tempered ("sure, there were some excesses, but the trains ran on time" sorts of things). I only read it because I had read their other excellent books (the Venona one, secret world of american communism, the soviet world of american communism, etc (most from Yale University Press I believe)). They went to Russia right after it opened up, and went through files before the Russians closed them again, so their work is an invaluable resource, direct from Soviet espionage files.

I remember seeing classes at the U that were along those lines as well, but they were not in the real history dept, but the silly "american studies" department (yes, I know calling "american/women's/gender/etc-studies" is redundant, since any real work along those lines would simply be "history").

Like everything else human, there is going to be bias. You have to just live with it.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by tater

It is, however, prevalent in academic studies of the former Soviet Union and Cold War, however

As someone interested in and researching that field, I can say that reading an account after account that could be summarized by saying "this sucked" gets tedious. It's an easy way to get lots of accepting nods, but it has been done for so many times that it's difficult to bring much new to it. Researcher after researcher has argued and proven that the first five year plan failed, the collectivization was a tragedy and the purges whimsical tyranny. In how many different ways it is necessary to say that?

The research these days may seem to be looking at the Soviet Union in a more positive light, because the focus is on subjects that do not necessarily need a "failed / succeeded" stamp on them. I, for example, studied the Soviet film culture in the 1930s for my seminar thesis and am continuing it on my master's thesis. I mentioned the current paradigms on the 1930s when necessary and compared my sources (the films) to the researched reality of the 1930s, but I had no reason to start repeating in detail what researchers far more experienced than me had already said. I could simply refer to any of them.

I haven't personally yet seen excesses in the papers I have read on the subject. They might exist, but at least in my material there haven't yet been any. Mostly the writers disagree on if, for example, the first five year plan failed completely or just partially. They do, however, say that the plan started the industrialization of the Soviet Union at heavy cost. All in all they seem neutral to me, but then again, I'm not researching that particular topic and haven't read the original sources myself.