you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

As a human, yes we always need to be reassessing things. If this means going back over the history books to find how they were just contemporary propaganda then maybe we can drill down into to the truth of how we got where we are today.

My views will change as the evidence changes.

You're not secretly historic if you declare it.

[–]SecretlyHistoric 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, I'm not saying that we don't need to constantly go back and re-evaluate the past. That needs to be done constantly to better understand who we are and where we came from. That being said, what we don't need is people going back and using history-sometimes incorrect history- to push an agenda or attempt to forget the past for moral reasons. https://thehill.com/capital-living/cover-stories/167475-revisionist-history-politicians-rewrite-the-past-to-suit-their-present

http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/the-dangers-of-historical-revisionism/

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

How about freedom for all views and let the best ones win?

Some are going to revise for political purposes, others for truth. Like in all things and always.

Then in a generation or few the scholars can review them all too and see if/where they were biased.

[–]SecretlyHistoric 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So long as they are backed up with sources. It can't just be "Well I believe x because I believe x" Well, for anything but religion anyway. There's a lot of speculation and false information being spread around right now.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So no original theories or thoughts allowed?

[–]SecretlyHistoric 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not saying that at all. As a historian, I take information from other theories and speculations and their sources, then re-interpret it. For instance, I am working on a paper right now examining the motivation of France in entering the Revolutionary War. I've got dozen of both secondary sources (what other people have said) and some primary sources (What people at the time said) I use both to prove the topic of my paper.

New ways of interpreting old data are coming about all the time. Borderlands history is a good one to look at and is relatively new. Queer history is another. Nothing about the data is new for the most part- it's all things examined before. Now it is being examined in a new light.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's what revisionists do.

[–]SecretlyHistoric 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)