Historical Revisionism

[UnrepentantSinner]

There’s one area, besides cryptozoology that I don’t see getting much text time in the Forum, and that’s Revisionist History (well, besides Young Earth Creationism). Since that’s a topic near and dear to my heart, I wanted to toss out a few of the ones that really bother me.

Historical Revisionism differs from other questions and conflicts over historical “facts” in that there is almost always an agenda behind the advocates of the alternate versions. Unusual discoveries, like Kennewick Man; incomplete answers, like the origins of Japan’s Ainu; and even revolutionary theories, like Thor Hierdahl’s migration theories aren’t sufficiently driven by agenda to qualify as Historical Revisionism.

Egyptian Afrocentrism.

Advocates of this theory claim that the Ancient Egyptians were black equatorial Africans and not the brown Hamitic north Africans we see portrayed in wall art. I’ve even heard it claimed (I forget by whom at the time) that Rameses II was black. The biggest problem I have this theory is Ancient Egypt belongs to the Egyptians. As an Islamic state they technically should have destroyed all the idolatry of the Ancients (see the Taliban) but from the death of Cleopatra, though the Coptic Church period, the coming of Islam until the modern state, they have generally preserved their heritage.

It’s not as though black Africa has a dearth of great civilizations they can be proud of like Timbuktu and Great Zimbabwe (http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/sites/maplist/africa.htm) as well as the Zulu Kingdom build by Shaka and need to co-opt the Pharaohs.

British Israelism:

This intellectual abomination gleans many different revisions into a unifying theory that is generally used by anti-Semites and White Power advocates. The basic claim is that the diaspora of the 10 “lost” tribes of Israel were sent by the Assyrians into Europe where they became the modern mostly northern European states. Some of the supposed evidence for this is Denmark, is named after the tribe of Dan and the Saxons are “Isaac’s Sons.” From this claim advocates try to support the notion that Northern Europeans (and by extension the United States) are the “true” Israel not the imposter Khazar Jews living in the Middle East.

This melange of pathetic attempts at etymology, racism and migration maps drawn with more wishful thinking than facts was most vocally advocated in the U.S. by Herbert W. Armstrong’s World Wide Church of God. Under the leadership of his son Garner Ted Armstrong, this organization has completely renounced British Israelism. The torch, however, has been picked up by ]Gerald Flurry’s Philadelphia Church of God (http://www.keyofdavid.com/wwwkeyofdavidcom/geo/na/docs/default.asp[url).

I discovered one irony of British Israelism and it’s conflict with reality while watching a documentary on the possibility that some of the Israelites might have wound up in India. I’ll dig around for further information if anyone wants it, but the show gave pretty compelling evidence that that’s where some of the lost tribes went. I’m sure Gerald Flurry will be in a tizzy when he learns that the Promised Land is on the Brahmaputra and not the Potomac.

Holocaust Deniers:

This group is personally offensive to me because I’ve been to Dachau. I’ve seen the death camps. I’ve seen a gravesite the size of an automobile holding the ashes of thousands of victims. The only reason I don’t get more angry about it more often is that thankfully there aren’t that many believers, though doubtlessly as time passes, others will fall for slickly produced video tapes and web pages. In general they tend to be virulently anti-Semetic and are associated with White Power organizations.

Unfortunately one of the most influential organs of this movement comes up as the 2nd hit on a Google search if you use “historical+review.” Here’s the result:

Institute for Historical Review (http://www.ihr.org) ... The Institute for Historical Review is non-ideological, non-political, and non-sectarian. It is ...
Description: Site of the world's leading Holocaust denial organisation. Many articles from its journal (founded...

Michael Shermer does a great job showing how to (as well as how not to) confront Holocaust Deniers in his “Why People Believe Weird Things.” Steven Spielberg is doing the world a great service with his Shoah project, recording the memories of Holocaust survivors.

Feminists/Neo-Pagans:

Not to lump Feminists and Neo-Pagans together, but the Revisionism that I’m referring to is used by both groups. A gross oversimplification of their theory states that Europe was a feminist, woman-centered, vegetarian Utopia, where women were fat and happy and men knew their place. It seemed the wonder years of the Neolithic might last forever until the coming of the Khurgans who, as meat eaters, had developed large penises and aggressive tendencies. They subjugated the peaceful, nature loving, Goddess worshipping peoples of Europe and gave rise to such brutal societies as the Assyrians, Egyptians and Greeks.

Marija Gimutas (http://www.kindredarts.com/kindreda...s/gimbutas.html) is considered to have started this ideological movement and while she has received praise from people like Joseph Campbell I remain unmoved by her claims. One of the more prominent voices advocating this theory is Starhawk (http://www.starhawk.org/) who is a paragon for everything I disdain about this form of Revisionism.

Antedeluvian Utopians:

Despite the name, not all Antedeluvian revisionists claim a flood wiped out some pre-historic advanced or Utopian civilization. Some claim that astronomic events or other Earth changes wiped them out. Atlantis remains the most famous of these supposed civilizations. Others include Mu and the pre-flood Bible stores. One of the more famous claims about the Atlanteans comes from “The Sleeping Prophet” Edgar Cayce who claims that there is a Hall of Records beneath the Sphinx in Giza that contains the wisdom, knowledge and “real” history of Atlantis.

The biggest problem faced by Antedeluvians, despite hundreds of years of claims and hundreds of publications on these civilizations is that we have yet to uncover even a pot shard that would indicate they actually existed. With all the archaeological digs that have occurred in places that many of these claims center on, not a single compelling piece of evidence has been found.


These are just a few examples of Historical Revisionism that bother me. If anyone else wants clarification or to discuss any of them (or add your own) please post and we’ll see if this thread has any legs.

[athon]

Historical revisors (is that what they're called) are very similar to most pseudo-scientists: to them, a new way of looking at something presents an entire field unto itself, rather than a small piece of a larger jigsaw that has already been put together.

To use that analogy, you find pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and see how they're arranged. Each new piece is assessed to see if it can fit somewhere. If not, you look to see if a) the jigsaw can be rearranged to accomodate the new piece, or b) you put it aside for now, assuming it will fit once more pieces are found.

Historical revisors look at such a piece and see it on its own, ignoring any other piece of the jigsaw that it doesn't match. You can get some pretty interesting pictures that way, but rarely does it look like the front of the box.

Athon

[bangdazap]

I think that after the Greek invasion by Alexander ("the Great") all the Egyptian Pharoes were white (since they were descendant from the Greek general that ruled Egypt after the death of Alexander).

History is revised all the time by historians as new documents and other evidence are unearthed. One revision of history was that it isn't certain that Jesus is a historical person for instance.

[JimTheBrit]

I read an article recently (from the skeptix mailing list?) that presented this webite http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.php as one of the main resources for debates on pseudo-history. I haven't had time to check it out yet but it looks as though it provides a skeptical viewpoint on some of the issues raised in the above posts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

From the Hall of Ma'at home page:

The aim of this site is to provide a well reasoned case for the mainstream version of ancient history. We will present articles that validate our true heritage and that dispute the proposals used to support the belief in a lost civilization that seeded the familiar ancient cultures of the world.

Sweet! An excellent resource Jim, thanks for pointing it out to me.

As an aside, I really think historical revisionism is one of those areas that are neglected by skeptics. I realize pointing out what a fake John Edward is, is more fun and Homeopathic claims are more easily analyzed than historical ones, but it is an area that deserves attention.

If people become confused about who we are and where we came from, then it makes them all that much more succeptable to people who claim to speak to the dead or that water has memory.

[Melissa Johnson]

Kennewick Man was an unusual discovery--but why include this under revisionist history? Other than the fact that the Umatillas have tried to suppress scientific study of the skeleton.

edited to add a big D'OH!

Must...have more coffee in the morning...I read your whole post and saw my error. But Kennewick Man is an interesting topic!! :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Kennewick Man was an unusual discovery--but why include this under revisionist history? Other than the fact that the Umatillas have tried to suppress scientific study of the skeleton.

edited to add a big D'OH!

Must...have more coffee in the morning...I read your whole post and saw my error. But Kennewick Man is an interesting topic!! :D

:)

I think all anomolies are interesting. And now that I think about it (I'm chugging beers not coffee - night shift) it's possible that with the whole burial/study flap over him from the agenda driven parties that could shove this into revisionist territory.

Of course the Kennewick controversy is small potatoes compared to who actually "owns" Otsi.

[RedCoat]

Every time I hear about Atlantis, Lemuria, or any of these other so-called "lost civilizations", I remember my third grade teacher who devoted an hour a day for an entire nine-week grading period to the subject. (Under the pretext of "social studies".)

This woman, paid by tax dollars, would go on and on "teaching" impressionable young children about Atlantis *as if it were fact*.

As a result, I totally believed in the reality of Atlantis until sometime around eighth grade. (Embarassing, yes, but I admit it.)

Teachers like this should be fired.

-RedCoat

[Melissa Johnson]

Ancient Encounters is the book written by the archaeologist who first studied "Kennewick Man"--I just finished reading it. Fascinating stuff and an interesting defense on his part--never thought that archaeology could be so...well...vicious. As much as I can understand why Native Americans want to 'repatriate' their dead, I can't for the life of me figure why they are so threatened by this discovery. Kennewick Man isn't white . He's a pile of bones 9,000 years old that show indications of other than Native American characteristics--possibly living in the area simultaneously with proto-native tribes, etc--possibly a different line that died out or--?

But when you get into neo-Native religion, P.C. government attitudes, and general human suspicion and hurt feelings and so forth, the waters muddy considerably...:(

edited to add: I love anomalies too. I've read extensively on crypto-zoology--I love hearing the legends and myths about 'monsters' and so forth--along with historical weirdnesses, ghost stories, etc....(sorry I can't think of everything I want to say before I submit post! argh!)

[darling]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
As an aside, I really think historical revisionism is one of those areas that are neglected by skeptics. Michael Shermer is quite hot on the subject - particularly Holocaust deniers, but also Afrocentrists. I think "Why People Believe Weird Things" has a pretty good coverage.

From there I picked up Mary Lefkowitz' "Not Out Of Africa" which is also a great handling of the topic.

[Melissa Johnson]

H'm. I believe a trip to the library is in order. I haven't read Lefkowitz yet, though I remember the flap when the book came out a few years ago. And I haven't read Shermer yet either (hang head!).

[Marc]

I've read Shermers book Denying History, all on Holocaust Denial. Pretty good book. One argument of the deniers that was easily debunked was how some door to a gass chamber had a peep hole, claiming the prisoners could break the glass allowing the gas to escape. Turns out the peephole is about 2" across and 1/2" thick. You would most likely break your fingers before you could break through that, for all the good it would do.


Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies. You know that thing about only hunting as much as they need, and using every part of the buffalo? It's bull (or at least a part of the bull you don't want to use :rolleyes: :D ) An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff. Then go to the bottom of the cliff and have a huge BBQ

[Nyarlathotep]

Historical revisionism is almost inevitable, unfortunately. History is such a politicized discipline that just about any group with a point to make will try to seize on some bit of history and twist it to their ends. One of my college history professors pointed out that in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, history was one of only two fields where one was required to be a party member to teach it (the other being Political Science, for obvious reasons) because people get such a sense of their identity from history that it makes a really valuable propaganda tool.

Look at the recent debates over the way American students are taught about the settlemet of the west. In the old days students were taught that the Indians (Native Americans, if you prefer) were evil ignorant savages who were trying to block our expansion werstward. In recent years the politics have shifted and the settlers are portrayed as the villains wantonly raping, looting and pillaging their way westward. In reality, both groups were made of individuals, both good and bad, and the realtionship between the groups was very complex. That view, however, doesn't satisfy anyones political agenda so it is pretty much ignored. I could give more examples but I have work to do.

[Melissa Johnson]

Who was it said " History is written by the victors" or some such line...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Who was it said " History is written by the victors" or some such line...

I don't know who said it but it is all too true.

One of the best books I have ever read on how revised even what we would consider 'Standard' history, is called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". I am at work and thus don't have it handy so I can recall the name of the author, though.

[Charles Livingston]

Is Howard Zinn considered revisionist history?

[AlH]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Antedeluvian Utopians:

The biggest problem faced by Antedeluvians, despite hundreds of years of claims and hundreds of publications on these civilizations is that we have yet to uncover even a pot shard that would indicate they actually existed. With all the archaeological digs that have occurred in places that many of these claims center on, not a single compelling piece of evidence has been found.

It's obvious, they were such an enlightened civilization that *everything* that made up their civilization was biodegradable and easily recyclable, thus the utter lack of any physical evidence of their existence is all the proof you need.

[LW]

Originally posted by Marc

Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies.

Last week I finished reading Constant Battles by Leckie where he argues for the case that evidence for warfare has turned out in every group of humans that has left an archealogical record.

He also mentions that the last primitive farming societies, those in highland Papua New Guinea and those in jungles of Venezuela both had a 25% combat death rate among men until 1960s. (That is, one man in four died because of warfare).

An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff.

Well, if you don't have horses, that is pretty much the only possible way to hunt buffaloes.

[Melissa Johnson]

Originally posted by LW


Last week I finished reading Constant Battles by Leckie where he argues for the case that evidence for warfare has turned out in every group of humans that has left an archealogical record.

He also mentions that the last primitive farming societies, those in highland Papua New Guinea and those in jungles of Venezuela both had a 25% combat death rate among men until 1960s. (That is, one man in four died because of warfare).



Well, if you don't have horses, that is pretty much the only possible way to hunt buffaloes.

An article in last month's Discover magazine focused on an archeologist who has a theory that the ancient tribes in the American Southwest were war-like, too--something that is in a bit of debate at the moment for just those very reasons (i.e. Antediluvian Utopians vs. Warriors, etc.).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson
Who was it said " History is written by the victors" or some such line...

As one of my previous sig lines attests, history is not always written by the victorious.

See Thucydides.

[bPer]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Egyptian Afrocentrism.

Advocates of this theory claim that the Ancient Egyptians were black equatorial Africans and not the brown Hamitic north Africans we see portrayed in wall art. I’ve even heard it claimed (I forget by whom at the time) that Rameses II was black.

Eh??? The mummy of Ramses II is in a museum in Cairo! Do these people deny that it is his mummy? Surely, a professional examination could determine his race. Maybe even do DNA analysis, although I don't know if that's possible after all this time and the mummification process.

Just my Cdn$0.02 worth.

bPer

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Marc

Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies. You know that thing about only hunting as much as they need, and using every part of the buffalo? It's bull (or at least a part of the bull you don't want to use :rolleyes: :D ) An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff. Then go to the bottom of the cliff and have a huge BBQ

The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.

Leckie is quite correct - whenever we come upon a significant archaeological site or region and begin to dig, no matter how early the site is, more often than not there is evidence of warfare. The evidence may not necessarily be as direct as weapons and spearheads, either; one of the most telling indications of hostilities between two tribes or groups of people is if the two are in close enough proximity to make contact probable, yet there is a "no-man's land", an area between the two where no evidence of settlement can be found, and for good reason - that's where the hostile confrontations happened most often. But there was always conflict - if not between two or more tribes, then internecine. It's interesting to note that whenever a civilization developed the written word, the thing that was invariably written about first and most often was not their religion, or their "understanding of the balance of nature", but warfare - boasts of victory and conquest.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
[B]

The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.


What's worse is that this idea is often supported by people who should know better. John Keegan comes to mind.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.

This is similar to a PBS show I watched on Yosemite some years back. The audience was told about the native americans in the area living "in harmony" with nature.

Some five minutes later in the show they explained that close to a quarter of the tribe starved every winter.

If that's harmony, I can do without it, thanks.

NA

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


What's worse is that this idea is often supported by people who should know better. John Keegan comes to mind.

But this brings us full circle - the Beautiful People myth is most often used by people with an agenda. You can tell what the agenda is by whichever THEM led to the "extinction" of the Beautiful People. Of course, proponents of the myth are trying to imply that if we denounced the ways of THEM, and embraced the way things were, we could become the Beautiful People. Keep this consciously in mind next time you hear Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh talk about the "good old days", when there was no crime and everybody was happy - until THEY came - the "Libs", the "Church/State Seperationists", the "Integrationists". Think very carefully...when, really, was that magical golden age when nobody locked their doors at night?

[athon]

Australia is plagued with the beautiful people myth.

The popular thought is that the indigenous folk here before 'white man' lived in harmony with the land. Considering the fact that there is evidence of large mammals in Australia about 40,000 years ago - and then (suddenly) they died out - gives evidence to the fact that the first humans in Australia caused the instinction of a great many large mammals.

It don't disagree that their impact was less than ours today - I do however find the propaganda distasteful.

Athon

[a_unique_person]

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Who destroys or "eats" the future? Those who have not shared a past: coevolution is the key to survival of all species, maintains Flannery, a senior research scientist in mammalogy at the Australian Museum in Sydney. Just as human immunities have failed when confronted with previously isolated viruses, so entire ecosystems have crumbled with the introduction of man. Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia and New Guinea make for an interesting case study: though once conjoined, they later separated, developing disparate climates and soil types. Equally important, they were colonized at different times, with man reaching Australia 45,000 to 60,000 years ago and New Caledonia just 3500 years ago. Flannery posits that these virgin islands, which were replete with unexploited resources, naive, almost ``tame,'' herbivores and no real competition from other predators, allowed man to make ``the great leap forward'' to become not just one species among many but the species. New virgin territories presented other opportunities for wealth, population growth, leisure and subsequent leaps forward. But the cost is invariably great: human populations soar, then drop as food sources become extinct or soil is exhausted and imported ideas of agriculture, husbandry and hunting slowly give way to environmental reality--reality that is particularly harsh to Australia's poor soil. With great skill and research, Flannery demonstrates the subtle interaction that makes an ecosystem work, from glaciers to fire, from dung beetles to man. In the process he makes a formidable, sometimes frightening argument for careful cooperation with--rather than domination of--the world.



I think he also has the theory that while they older races didn't start off being respectful of nature, they came to when they realised they would die out if they didn't.

One thing in their favour, despite the undoubted hardships of their lives, is that their cultures have survived for such a long time, about 20,000 years in the case of the Australian aboriginals. Something must have been working right.

As for revisionism, there is a big move on in Australia to say that, apart from a few clashes, the white man really didn't have much to do at all with aboriginals dying out to the extent they have. Although many view this as being revisionist, he is widely admired by the conservative politicians and is being treated with a lot of respect.

Finally, politics in the Middle East has a lot to play in revisionism. For example, Palestinians have to apply for a permit to undertake archeological digs, which is usually a very difficult process. Israelis don't have this problem. The aim is to ensure the Palestinians are not allowed to investigate their culture, making them non-people without a history.

[athon]

Is that the same guy who got trashed by the traditional historians because he denied that the Tasmanian Aborigines were all killed through genocide?

His arrogance made him somewhat distasteful, but his arguments were worthy of looking at. He basically claimed that there was no evidence that there was systematic slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines, and that most died out because of their susceptibility to western diseases.

Plausible, especially considering that he had documents supporting his view that colonial rule wanted to 'civilize the natives'. Why kill them all anyway?

Athon

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by athon
Is that the same guy who got trashed by the traditional historians because he denied that the Tasmanian Aborigines were all killed through genocide?

His arrogance made him somewhat distasteful, but his arguments were worthy of looking at. He basically claimed that there was no evidence that there was systematic slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines, and that most died out because of their susceptibility to western diseases.

Plausible, especially considering that he had documents supporting his view that colonial rule wanted to 'civilize the natives'. Why kill them all anyway?

Athon

I think he is incredibly naive. Although officially there was no slaughter, in practice, the settlers could do pretty much what they wanted.

They used the aboriinals as virtual slave labour, until there were strikes, so they threw them off their land as the machanised era of farming was arriving anyway.

There is no racism in Australia, but clubs in the country will have a dress code that is designed only to enforce racist entry policies.

You just have to read the stories of the aboriginals themselves. Jimmy Krakour's father, for example. I couldn't finish the book, as it made me too sad. The aboriginals knew who was boss, and just had to accept everything that was done to them. When some wandering aboriginals killed a bull to eat, the police were called and took them away. The comment was that they were not too smart, and that no-one would be surprised if they were never seen again.

Put it this way, it is not official policy to use verbals, deal in drugs or abuse your power to kill people. Cops still do this, though. Not all of them, but it's the ones who do it that cause the problems. You can imagine what it was like years ago when communications and command and control was nothing like it is today.

[athon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think he is incredibly naive. Although officially there was no slaughter, in practice, the settlers could do pretty much what they wanted.

They used the aboriinals as virtual slave labour, until there were strikes, so they threw them off their land as the machanised era of farming was arriving anyway.

There is no racism in Australia, but clubs in the country will have a dress code that is designed only to enforce racist entry policies.

You just have to read the stories of the aboriginals themselves. Jimmy Krakour's father, for example. I couldn't finish the book, as it made me too sad. The aboriginals knew who was boss, and just had to accept everything that was done to them. When some wandering aboriginals killed a bull to eat, the police were called and took them away. The comment was that they were not too smart, and that no-one would be surprised if they were never seen again.

Put it this way, it is not official policy to use verbals, deal in drugs or abuse your power to kill people. Cops still do this, though. Not all of them, but it's the ones who do it that cause the problems. You can imagine what it was like years ago when communications and command and control was nothing like it is today.

I fully agree.

My father is a house removalist. The state government would purchase old school demountables, ship them out to communities like Cherbourg and convert them into houses, complete with rooms and kitchens and stuff.

The folk out at these communities would rip them apart and use the wood for fires and stuff. You can see why people were outraged.

The thing was, however, most of the Aborigines weren't brought up with the concept of ownership. So they thought the buildings were just there to use as they wanted. In addition, they didn't sleep in their own rooms, or use a kitchen. What did the government expect to happen?

It's different now. Most of the buildings are brick and have one main room with outdoor firepits and stuff. And they have far less problems (excluding alcoholism, which is another story).

The guy was probably a little naive. I don't disagree with the view that colonialists were racist. I just don't see the point of genocide from any practical point of view.

Athon

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by bPer


Eh??? The mummy of Ramses II is in a museum in Cairo! Do these people deny that it is his mummy? Surely, a professional examination could determine his race. Maybe even do DNA analysis, although I don't know if that's possible after all this time and the mummification process.

Just my Cdn$0.02 worth.

bPer

I think your avatar is my favorite so far.

I've not really dug enough to state this as fact, but Rameses II's mummy has red hair - and I don't think it's henna. Now, because the mutations for red hair (which doesn't occur enough in the human race IMO - right Interesting Ian) do occur in black populations that in of itself is not enough to reject Rameses being Equitoral African. His mummy and his representations in reliefs do constitute a sufficiently large body of evidence to reject him being "Black African."

With regard to the Aborigene issue, an aside...

Some Creationists (Kent Hovind for example) make the false claim that the Smithsonian Institution has 30,000 Aborigene skulls in it's collection as "proof of evolution." I e-mailed the Smithsonian and have an extensive rebuttal to this claim - though from a source who wishes to remain "non-official."

There's no doubt that Anglo-Australians treated the Aborigenes poorly, but on the whole not a lot worse than they treated other idigenous peoples or indeed as bad as many European civilizations treated their fellow Europeans.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

There's no doubt that Anglo-Australians treated the Aborigenes poorly, but on the whole not a lot worse than they treated other idigenous peoples or indeed as bad as many European civilizations treated their fellow Europeans.

Probably the worst example of the genocide of an idigenous people is the of the Bushmen who used to live in South/Southern Africa. Basically they were exterminated like vermin by both european settlers and the Bantu tribes who moved in from the north. They used to live everywhere across an entire subcontinent and are now chiefly confined to the Kalahari desert.

My wife asked me once why they wanted to live in the desert. She was quite shocked when I explained that they didnt want to live there, its the only place that everyone else would let them live.

Theres an insidious form of revisionism going on in South Africa at the moment that basically says that it was solely the white mans fault for exterminating the Bushmen and that the Bantu tribes actually lived in harmony with their bushman brothers until evil Mr. Whiteman came along.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

As an aside, I really think historical revisionism is one of those areas that are neglected by skeptics. I realize pointing out what a fake John Edward is, is more fun and Homeopathic claims are more easily analyzed than historical ones, but it is an area that deserves attention.

If people become confused about who we are and where we came from, then it makes them all that much more succeptable to people who claim to speak to the dead or that water has memory.

That's a terrific point, USA. I agree completely.

It is utterly baffling to me how some intelligent persons can say with a straight face that certain events that are well documented with many credible sources and cross references simply didn't happen.

This is reverse skepticism. It is denying a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of it and a complete lack of credible evidence against it.

Perhaps you can persuade Randi to begin a chronicle of significant recent examples of historical revisionism.

AS

[rwguinn]

The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by rwguinn
The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

That's one reason. Another is the desire on the part o fthe public for their history to have "good guys" and "bad guys". They don't want to admit that historical figures were human and had complex human motivations and for the most part were neither particularly more heroic or villainous than anyone else.

Another thing (and this is mostly US history, I can't speak for any other country) there are political concerns. Take the Civil war, if you are a textbook publisher and you say that it was started over slavery, you will p**s off certain elements in the south who will say it was about states rights. If you say it was about states rights you will p**s off blacks who will say it is over slavery. If you say it started over a combination of the two you will p**s off both parties. You can't win, so you try to be as vague on the topic as possible.

People read a lot of their own identity in history, which makes it a powerful propaganda tool. This is, in my opinion, the true root cause of historical revisionism.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

People read a lot of their own identity in history, which makes it a powerful propaganda tool. This is, in my opinion, the true root cause of historical revisionism.

Well said.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by rwguinn
The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

If you look at each of the examples I have above, they're all an indightment of 20th Century America (and Western Civ in general). Excellent point. I'm trying to develop this post into an article and I'll inculcate that into my overall premise.

My comment on actors and roles: If Denzel Washington can play Heidetora in a remake of "Ran" and George Tekei can play George Washington in a reprisal of "1776" - which, neither have, but they could - it shouldn't make a $h!t bit of difference what the ethnicity of the actor playing a roll is.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


it shouldn't make a $h!t bit of difference what the ethnicity of the actor playing a roll is.

Yeah, any actor playing a roll will likely get dough all over himself anyway.

.....Oh, you meant "role."

:D

AS--just giving you sh*t, man

[davefoc]

This is an interesting topic and it's difficult to limit myself to just a few words on it.

Beautiful People Myth
I had never heard the term beautiful people myth, but I think it describes very well some popular notions of history. Something like, the native populations were living in a nature oriented, peaceful shangi-la until my terrible ancestors came along and stole their land. Even though it's not the intent of the people pushing this notion, there's a kind of racism inherent in this view because it assumes that the native populations are substantially different in nature than the invading populations.

The Bible As Historical Revisionism
The bible looks like a good example of historical revisionism on steroids.
a. Almost all the "history" of the bible relating to incidents before about 900 BC is completely fabricated.
b. The myths that were put forth were enormously successful propaganda serving to unify and foment numerous rebellions by a population against impossible odds.
c. The biblical myths are believed to be historical by vast numbers of people even today.

Holocaust Deniers
Yes, this is a weird movement, but I have concerns that legitimate questions about the nature of the holocaust get blasted away because of a possible association with the holocaust deniers. One of the things that I have noticed over the years is tht there is almost no discussion of the non-Jews that were killed in the holocaust. As I understand it roughly half the people murdered in concentrations camps were not Jews. Why has history chosen to emphasize the Jewish victims so strongly over the other victims?

Rwguinn's Point
"The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras." Thought it was a good point so I repeated it. There is a lot that could be said about this but I won't be the one to say it. At least not in this post.

[bPer]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I think your avatar is my favorite so far.
Thanks! :cool:
Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I've not really dug enough to state this as fact, but Rameses II's mummy has red hair - and I don't think it's henna. Now, because the mutations for red hair (which doesn't occur enough in the human race IMO - right Interesting Ian) do occur in black populations that in of itself is not enough to reject Rameses being Equitoral African. His mummy and his representations in reliefs do constitute a sufficiently large body of evidence to reject him being "Black African."
I noticed his hair colour too, but put it down to an effect of the mummification or post-mortem aging process. I have no evidence of that, though. Time to do a bit of research ...

BTW, count me in the Red-Headed League, although these days, I wouldn't pass the entrance exam. :(

bPer

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by bPer

Thanks! :cool:

I noticed his hair colour too, but put it down to an effect of the mummification or post-mortem aging process. I have no evidence of that, though. Time to do a bit of research ...

BTW, count me in the Red-Headed League, although these days, I wouldn't pass the entrance exam. :(

bPer

I'm still pretty sure Rameses had naturally red (or at least reddish hair).

And are you a redhead lover or a genetic anomoly with (or at least formally red hair)? Reminds me of the time I went to the Texas State Fair. My friend Jami has ass length red hair and as we were checking out a booth there, this guy's wife stopped us, and got hubby. He told Jami how much her locks reminded him of the ones he once had then removed his chapeau to reveal a completely bald pate.

And AS, kiss my @$$. I meant roll as in cinnomon or Kaiser, not what an actor plays. Please read for context next time. ;)

[bPer]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
And are you a redhead lover or a genetic anomoly with (or at least formally red hair)?
Well, I don't consider those choices to be mutually exclusive, but regardless, my answers would be 'yes' and 'no' respectively.

My family has many examples of red hair, but we also exhibit a common tendency to grey very early. In my case, I distinctly remember the day my father gleefully found my first grey hair, at age 21. :(

As for being a redhead lover, I'd say that there's a special place in my heart for redheads, but it didn't prevent me from falling in love and marrying a brunette (who is now just as grey as me).

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Reminds me of the time I went to the Texas State Fair. My friend Jami has ass length red hair ...

Thanks, man, for the wonderful mental image. Made my day.

bPer

[Luciana]

Originally posted by davefoc
This is an interesting topic and it's difficult to limit myself to just a few words on it.

Beautiful People Myth
I had never heard the term beautiful people myth, but I think it describes very well some popular notions of history. Something like, the native populations were living in a nature oriented, peaceful shangi-la until my terrible ancestors came along and stole their land. Even though it's not the intent of the people pushing this notion, there's a kind of racism inherent in this view because it assumes that the native populations are substantially different in nature than the invading populations.

I never participated in this thread, but I was enjoying it immensely. Finally, I have something to add. :)

I was reading just yesterday that, as we speak, Indian tribes living in the heart of the Amazon Forest are fighting against each other over territory. War, a bloody one, decimating their already diminutive population. I didn't read the details, but I could find the links if necessary.

So... if the "beautiful people myth" doesn't hold true in the 20th century - and we can safely say that those tribes have very little contact with the "white" men, mostly they're only given medicines once in a while - why would it be true in the 16th century?

Holocaust Deniers
Yes, this is a weird movement, but I have concerns that legitimate questions about the nature of the holocaust get blasted away because of a possible association with the holocaust deniers. One of the things that I have noticed over the years is tht there is almost no discussion of the non-Jews that were killed in the holocaust. As I understand it roughly half the people murdered in concentrations camps were not Jews. Why has history chosen to emphasize the Jewish victims so strongly over the other victims?


The Holocaust gets all the spotlights, it's so unfair! Let me add that just about any other war, in any other culture, will go through this same revisionism. I have been reading about the Paraguay War, the most important South American war of all times. At that time, in the 1860s, it was reported by the Brazilian press, that was mostly opposed to the war, that 2/3 of the Paraguayan population had perished, and that the male population of that country had all but gone.

Nowadays we hear that no information was available as to the population of Paraguay prior to the war, because there was never a census. Also, the numbers of the aftermatch were inaccurate because many Paraguayans moved to neighboring countries and returned after the war. Not to mention that those numbers had their own agenda behind it, and were actively used as a political tool for the following 30 years.

While all those arguments make sense, I too suspect that the most recent speculations - "just" 1/4 of the Paraguayan population died during the war - might be a case of historical revisionism. As a historian once said, "Paraguay is a Brazilian remorse", and, basically, people don't like this weighing in their own consciences.

It's one of the biggest difficulties, and yet a main source of fascination - the fact that you can't establish any historical "truth" withouth going deep into the matter and applying your critical skills always, to the risk of parroting misguided or intentional misconceptions.

Btw, USA, your avatar is rather intriguing. Suits you better. :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery

I was reading just yesterday that, as we speak, Indian tribes living in the heart of the Amazon Forest are fighting against each other over territory. War, a bloody one, decimating their already diminutive population. I didn't read the details, but I could find the links if necessary.

So... if the "beautiful people myth" doesn't hold true in the 20th century - and we can safely say that those tribes have very little contact with the "white" men, mostly they're only given medicines once in a while - why would it be true in the 16th century?


Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but in your reading, did the authors claim that this was culture as usual? Or are they fighting over a shrinking area (like the "living in the desert" comment above)?

I know of the anthropological studies of the Yanomamo (sp) "the fierce people"; is this them? Or are formerly peaceable peoples (if such exist--again, please forgive my ignorance on this) being pushed into conflict by vanishing territory?

[davefoc]

Luciana,
Thanks for the interesting post.

After I saw your post, I read a little summary of the Triple Alliance War. The three allies being Brazil, Argentina and Urugway. They apparently waged a brutal war against Paraquay for five years that killed a large percentage of the Paraquayan male population. One of the results of the war was to leave Paraquay with a democratic government.

I understand why this would be the most important war in the history of Paraquay but why do you think it was the most important war in the history of South America?

On the subject of the Beutiful People Myth:
My feelings about this were strongly influenced by a book I read a long time ago. It was written by an anthropologist who lived with a primitive tribe. I was struck by how the tribe celebrated the killing of a member of another tribe by somebody in their tribe. It seemed that the tribe lived in a constant state of low intensity war. This seems like something that is common to many primitive tribes. Without being very knowledgeable about this, I think the answer to Mercutio's question as to whether a peaceful people exist is no.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by budddyh
Michael Shermer is quite hot on the subject - particularly Holocaust deniers, but also Afrocentrists. I think "Why People Believe Weird Things" has a pretty good coverage.

From there I picked up Mary Lefkowitz' "Not Out Of Africa" which is also a great handling of the topic.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/12/1055220667712.html




Fossils find writes new chapter in our narrative
June 12 2003
By Stephen Cauchi Science Reporter


Skulls of the oldest modern humans have been uncovered in Herto, Ethiopia, showing that people looking remarkably like us were roaming the African plains 160,000 years ago.

The fossilised skulls of two adults and one child aged six or seven, all bearing signs of a grisly mortuary ritual, are the oldest to bear the label Homo sapiens. The previous oldest remains, discovered in Ethiopia and Israel, are about 30,000 years younger.

The modern-looking skulls, say some academics, offer further evidence that all Homo sapiens originated in Africa before spreading to the rest of the world and displacing older and more primitive human species like Neanderthal man and, possibly, Homo erectus.

....

"Homo sapiens sapiens is a very slippery concept," said Colin Groves, of the Australian National University's anthropology department. "The new specimen is exactly what we predicted for Homo sapiens before it starts to branch out and diversify, before it started to develop racial features."

Professor Groves said the skulls were further evidence that Homo sapiens evolved only in Africa before leaving the continent roughly 100,000 years ago - the Out of Africa theory.

The opposing school of thought, the multi-region theory, holds that Homo sapiens evolved simultaneously in Africa, Europe and Asia.



I thought the 'Out of Africa' theory was pretty well recognised. Are there two OOA theories, one about the actual human race and another about the development of modern culture?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery


I never participated in this thread, but I was enjoying it immensely. Finally, I have something to add. :)

The Holocaust gets all the spotlights, it's so unfair!

Btw, USA, your avatar is rather intriguing. Suits you better. :)

Thank you for your contribution Luciana.

The reason the Shoah gets all the attention is two-fold, first was the organized and systematic nature of Nazi extermination machine. The other is the influence of Jews in Holloywood and the media. I'm not saying - like the Holocaust deniers, and other anti-Jewish activists that the Jews "own Hollywood" etc. I am saying their influential and that's not a bad thing. Witness movies like Exodus, Raid on Entebbee, the recent Warsaw Ghetto TV movie and the mini-series Holocaust.

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making. The only one I can think of is Cambodia, and of the two films that address it, one is about the making of the other. (The Killing Fields and Swimming to Cambodia).

Second the clarion call to the ages from those want something positive to come from the horrors of the Shoah is "Never again." Unfortunately "never" has happened many times since 1945.

Never happened in Cambodia.
Never happened in Bosnia.
Never happened in Rwanda.
Never is happening in Congo.

What happened to "never again?"

[Tony]

bump

[Giz]

I think he also has the theory that while they older races didn't start off being respectful of nature, they came to when they realised they would die out if they didn't.

One thing in their favour, despite the undoubted hardships of their lives, is that their cultures have survived for such a long time, about 20,000 years in the case of the Australian aboriginals. Something must have been working right.

.

I think that a major and often overlooked reason that iniginous societies had relatively little impact on their environment is that they simply had far lower populations. "living in harmony with nature" wasn't necessary, there just weren't enough of them surviving to create a big environmental impact.

[UnrepentantSinner]

bump

Thanks for the bump man. :)

[joobie]

rigt now, there are protesters outside the franklin institute in philadelphia.

it seems that there is no mention of king tut being black in the exhibit.

:(

[CapelDodger]

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making. The only one I can think of is Cambodia, and of the two films that address it, one is about the making of the other. (The Killing Fields and Swimming to Cambodia).

I think The Year of Living Dangerously set in the Indonesian genocide qualifies. And there's a recent film set in the Rwandan genocide. I'm coming up empty otherwise, though.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think The Year of Living Dangerously set in the Indonesian genocide qualifies. And there's a recent film set in the Rwandan genocide. I'm coming up empty otherwise, though.

I forgot The Year of Living Dangerously and indeed your are correct about Hotel Rwanda but it was released after I made that post.

[CapelDodger]

Luciana,
I understand why this would be the most important war in the history of Paraquay but why do you think it was the most important war in the history of South America?

I concur with Luciana's opinion, and will interject with my take on it.

(I know, I swore off Politics, but the occasional innocent thread can't hurt. I have it under control.)

The War of the Triple Alliance saw the coming-of-age of the allies as nations. To maintain the war they had to create modern, effective administrations to collect and expend taxes - something which had been lacking previously. This was only a generation or two after the Wars of Independence, after all. These were initially nations in name only; the reality on the ground was essentially feudal. That changed significantly during the war. (It's never gone away completely, of course, but neither has it in Europe :) .)

The war also trained a sophisticated diplomatic corps, which gained them entree to the international scene as credible players.

At the same time, the War promoted national-awareness - patriotism, "us" - by that classic method, conflict with a "them". It helped that the Paraguay of the day would appear thoroughly alien to anybody normal.



So the war was, essentially, the making of modern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

[CapelDodger]

I forgot The Year of Living Dangerously and indeed your are correct about Hotel Rwanda but it was released after I made that post.

That explains the "bump" :) . (I've only just been referred here, having kicked Politics cold-turkey a while back.)

There are a few films set in Bosnia, or "Former Yugoslavia", but none from Hollywood that aren't action movies, I'm pretty sure. It could happen, though. Unlike Rwanda or Cambodia or Darfur, the Balkan atrocities occurred in a non-exotic, recognisable, modern setting. From mundane to nightmare, just like that.

[NeoRicen]

And therein lies the problem, again, two fold. First, the other genocides that have occured in the 20th Century are woefully underrepresented in well known western film making.

I don't think people go to the movies to witness genocide...

[CapelDodger]

One of the best books I have ever read on how revised even what we would consider 'Standard' history, is called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". I am at work and thus don't have it handy so I can recall the name of the author, though.

More insidious than lies, IMO, are the things you're not told, the subjects your attention is not drawn to. For instance, the history curriculum I encountered in the UK jumped from Elizabeth I and the Armada to to Clive of India, skipped across Trafalgar and Waterloo, and landed firmly in the Reform Acts. Nothing about the Civil Wars, Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution - the foundations of not only modern Britain, but of the US.

Fortunately for me I had an excellent, not to say inspirational, history teacher who could cover all that in half the time allotted, and then engaged in conversation with the few of us that were actually interested. The cue was "I'm not paid to teach you this, you know, but anyway ..." after which the proles could read comics or catch up on homework, stare blankly at the wall, write poetry, whatever. As long as they were quiet. Woe betide the oik that interrupted with "My Dad says [something crass and ignorant]" with nothing to back it up. Not because Mr White would crap on them from his perch of authority, but because we would.

The most effective and important education I ever got.

[Mycroft]

I think that a major and often overlooked reason that iniginous societies had relatively little impact on their environment is that they simply had far lower populations. "living in harmony with nature" wasn't necessary, there just weren't enough of them surviving to create a big environmental impact.

I think "living in harmony with nature" by definition means that nature kills off enough of your population that you can't get to the kind of numbers required to have an impact.

Which is true of all forms of life, if you think about it. Animals have a lot more babies than what survives to adulthood to procreate themselves.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The American Civil War: It wasn't about slavery.

That was always a Shanek classic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't think people go to the movies to witness genocide...

There's a difference between going to movies to witness genocide and watching movies about genocide. People even watch clinical documentaries about genocide. What matters is whether the movie, mini-series, show, stage presentation, documentary or music video elicits the desire in people to do something about it, not how it makes them feel.

The American Civil War: It wasn't about slavery.

That was always a Shanek classic.

Was? You speak as if he's gone forever or that his posts/threads can't be resurrected. He'll be back to avoid the question and obvious answer - what state's right were Southern states so worried about protecting... oh, yeah, that's right slavery. :rolleyes:

[Giz]

The American Civil War: It wasn't about slavery.

That was always a Shanek classic.

I believe you meant "The War of Northern Aggression"!

There was a great riff he went into one time... from memory it went something like this:
"If Lincoln had let the South go then Federal power would be far weakened, therefore the USA would not intervene to the same extent in WW1, therefore Imperial Germany would not be defeated as badly, therefore the treaty of Versailles would not be as harsh, therefore the Nazis would not have been able to play on resentment of the treaty to gain power. Ergo, Lincoln caused Hitler, QED".

Amazing.

[gtc]

There was a great riff he went into one time... from memory it went something like this:
"If Lincoln had let the South go then Federal power would be far weakened, therefore the USA would not intervene to the same extent in WW1, therefore Imperial Germany would not be defeated as badly, therefore the treaty of Versailles would not be as harsh, therefore the Nazis would not have been able to play on resentment of the treaty to gain power. Ergo, Lincoln caused Hitler, QED".

I think Harry Turtledove wrote a book about that.

[marksman]

Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies. You know that thing about only hunting as much as they need, and using every part of the buffalo? It's bull (or at least a part of the bull you don't want to use :rolleyes: :D ) An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff. Then go to the bottom of the cliff and have a huge BBQ

If you want more information on how the Pre-Colombian Americans were far from "living in harmony with nature", I highly recommend 1491 (http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9946182-6972900?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181309376&sr=8-1), which I just finished. It's a great book, an easy read for non-archaeologists, and goes into great detail about a variety of American Indian cultures and how they vastly reshaped the American environment well before Columbus arrived. Some cultures wiped themselves out through envrionmental disaster. The Incas physically altered almost every mountain in the Andes. They terraformed the Amazon basin and burned down the Hundson River forests on a regular basis. They hunted animals to extinction and engaged in what seems like ceaseless warfare.

(It's not all negative. They created some of the first cultures on earth, produced monuments of art, and scientific developments -- like maize -- that still stun scientists today and that have transformed the world.)

I think he also has the theory that while they older races didn't start off being respectful of nature, they came to when they realised they would die out if they didn't.
That assumes a static culture, for which there is no evidence. Probably, like cultres elsewhere in the world, populations ebb and flow. They will split and merge, war and ally, fight and trade. Like all cultures, they will have social mores and philosophical or religious traditions that will be attirbuted to ancient days, but may be no older than a few hudnred years, or, if older, may not resemble the original philosophies at all.

One thing in their favour, despite the undoubted hardships of their lives, is that their cultures have survived for such a long time, about 20,000 years in the case of the Australian aboriginals.
That's like saying Iranian culture has "survived" for 20,000 years ot the founding of Persia. We have no evidence that aboriginal culture is the same as the culture of its ancestors. All was can say is that aboriginals have been in Australia for 20,000 years and thus have had culture for that time.

Something must have been working right.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

The aim is to ensure the Palestinians are not allowed to investigate their cultureIs there any thread you won't turn into a complaint about Israel?

[Beerina]

Egyptian Afrocentrism.

Advocates of this theory claim that the Ancient Egyptians were black equatorial Africans and not the brown Hamitic north Africans we see portrayed in wall art. I’ve even heard it claimed (I forget by whom at the time) that Rameses II was black. The biggest problem I have this theory is Ancient Egypt belongs to the Egyptians. As an Islamic state they technically should have destroyed all the idolatry of the Ancients (see the Taliban) but from the death of Cleopatra, though the Coptic Church period, the coming of Islam until the modern state, they have generally preserved their heritage.

Remember that religion is all about power, power for self-selected individuals. The artifacts, led by the pyramids, are currently an excellent source of tourism dollars, which is to say, hard western currency. Hence it is much more in the interest of those in power to keep the tourism going. Those in power do not, currently, need the radical version of Islam to stir up the local population against an enemy, in this case, their own non-Islamic past, in order to maintain power.

A few years back, there was a slavery revisionist movement among African Americans to claim there were as many as 250 million slaves who died on ships coming over to the US. This was rightly discounted as a simple mathematical check shows it to be physically rediculous as to the number of loaded ships that must have sunk every year, to say nothing of the astronomical numbers of ships needed if that 250 million were only a fraction of those brought over. But again, it's about gaining power by stirring up outrage. Innumeracy doesn't enter into it, apparently.


Feminists/Neo-Pagans:

Not to lump Feminists and Neo-Pagans together, but the Revisionism that I’m referring to is used by both groups. A gross oversimplification of their theory states that Europe was a feminist, woman-centered, vegetarian Utopia, where women were fat and happy and men knew their place. It seemed the wonder years of the Neolithic might last forever until the coming of the Khurgans who, as meat eaters, had developed large penises and aggressive tendencies. They subjugated the peaceful, nature loving, Goddess worshipping peoples of Europe and gave rise to such brutal societies as the Assyrians, Egyptians and Greeks.

Never heard of this one. I presume their claims follow the woo tradition (outrage, claims of being ignored by those in power structures, and a lack of getting many papers to withstand criticism and peer review in respected journals) rather than are a huge stack of respected papers in major journals.

[Beerina]

Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies. You know that thing about only hunting as much as they need, and using every part of the buffalo? It's bull (or at least a part of the bull you don't want to use :rolleyes: :D ) An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff. Then go to the bottom of the cliff and have a huge BBQ

I first heard about this in an archaeology class in the mid '80s. Actually, it was a variation on it, where the "victor" race or society generates memes of how noble the "losers" were. They were a proud people. Fierce. Brave. Magnificent fighters. It was one of those strange, reverse-racism things, and was thought to be a way for the "victors" to make themselves feel better about displacing the "losers".

It's an interesting dynamic, too. After the "win", you be kind to your defeated opponent, so their followers will think better of you, which is to your advantage. You, the new person with power over all of it.

[Tony]

Was? You speak as if he's gone forever or that his posts/threads can't be resurrected. He'll be back to avoid the question and obvious answer - what state's right were Southern states so worried about protecting... oh, yeah, that's right slavery. :rolleyes:

However right you may be. It's still a gross oversimplification to say the cause of the Civil War was slavery. I'm sure you know it was much more complicated than that.

[Tony]

Thanks for the bump man. :)

You're welcome. This was a good thread and I figured newer people should want to read it. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

However right you may be. It's still a gross oversimplification to say the cause of the Civil War was slavery. I'm sure you know it was much more complicated than that.

Of course. No war is ever about one single issue. It's a figure of speech.

However, Shanek and others like him will bend over backwards, sideways, and twist themselves into all sorts of contortions just to avoid the slavery angle.

Saying the Civil War was not about slavery is like saying WWII was not about Hitler.

[Luciana]

Luciana,
Thanks for the interesting post.

Man, that was 3 years ago!!! When I saw this, I thought "hmm, let me reread what I wrote, in case I don't agree with it anymore". :D

After I saw your post, I read a little summary of the Triple Alliance War. The three allies being Brazil, Argentina and Urugway. They apparently waged a brutal war against Paraquay for five years that killed a large percentage of the Paraquayan male population.

Correct. Paraguay was then being led by Solano Lopez, a dictator who believed that Paraguay should be as important as the size of its army - and that was at least 5 times more than that its neighbors. Lopez split his army in two to invade very different parts of Brazil. As Argentina denied access through its territory, Lopez attacked Argentina also.

You only have to look at the map to see this is complete madness - Paraguay is a landlocked country and it's dwarfed by Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. In the first year Rio del Plata was blocked and their access to the sea, read "armaments", was cut. Also, even though the Triple Alliance countries had puny armies, they had plenty of natural resources, stronger economies and larger demographic contingents.

Paraguay was devastated because Solano Lopez didn't surrender, and he hid in the marshes until he had used up all the male population in his own protection, including children.

One of the results of the war was to leave Paraquay with a democratic government.

That's a very 21st century way of thinking. :) Making the place a republic was preferable, but "democracy" never played a important role in the whole matter. With no agriculture, no manufacturing, no infrastructure and 2/3 of the male population dead, "democracy" isn't much of a sweet deal.

I understand why this would be the most important war in the history of Paraquay but why do you think it was the most important war in the history of South America?

First of all, what could be the other? :)

There is the Great Brazil-Argentina War That Never Happened. Well, if it ever does, at this point, it will be because of soccer. :D

There aren't many worth mentioning, and certainly none came close in terms of importance or casualties. There were the independence wars, of course. But between states? Hmm, the Pacific War, with Chile against Peru and Bolivia, in which Bolivia lost its exit to the sea (1883); Paraguay and Bolivia over the Chaco, where Bolivia lost part of its territory (1935); Argentina-UK, that lasted two months (1982). Aside from that, some border conflicts (Peru-Ecuador, Argentina-Chile, Peru-Bolivia).

But why it was so important? It was the demise of a country, one that was left in extreme poverty and whose territorial integrity was guaranteed by Brazil only because it didn't want Argentina to occupy it.

To Argentina, it meant progress, as the port of Buenos Aires profited because all the armaments, supplies, etc., that went through it. Also, lots of infrastructure was built because of it. The war solidified the recently-united country.That accumulation of wealth meant that by the turn of the century Argentina would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

To Uruguay, the most fragile country, it was the guarantee that a greedy dictator didn't share its borders. More than that, the war strengthened the ruling party, thus helping to stabilize a previously chaotic presidency.

Brazil was the only country which didn't profit any, on the contrary. It waived the costs of war of Paraguay and ended indebted because it paid for the war efforts of the whole Triple Alliance by itself. But the war fueled patriotism, and for the first time people felt Brazilian and acted on it. It is believed that this new awareness, among other things, led to the proclamation of the republic three decades later.

[Luciana]

I concur with Luciana's opinion, and will interject with my take on it.

(I know, I swore off Politics, but the occasional innocent thread can't hurt. I have it under control.)

Same here. I'll keep crossing my fingers so there's no trouble. :D

The War of the Triple Alliance saw the coming-of-age of the allies as nations. To maintain the war they had to create modern, effective administrations to collect and expend taxes - something which had been [quote]lacking previously. This was only a generation or two after the Wars of Independence, after all.

True. They had to build armies almost from scratch, had to establish a steady flow of information between heads of states, thus helping to "organize" the region for decades to come, etc.


These were initially nations in name only; the reality on the ground was essentially feudal. That changed significantly during the war. (It's never gone away completely, of course, but neither has it in Europe :) .)

Easy there. The word "feudal" would put you in serious trouble with historians around here. :) You may be thinking of backwardness and poverty, but aside from subsistence farming, all the work-relations were capitalist, even if in its most primitive forms. Most of the production was export-led anyway. Then there is widespread slavery. But not feudalism as that in Europe, if we could ever agree on a definition, that is.

Also, Brazil and Argentina can't be described as "in name only". Brazil had a centralized government, regular elections, active press, freedom of speech, many urban centers, diversified agriculture, heavy investment from England, a sizable Navy, etc. And Argentina had cities such as Buenos Aires, Entre-Rios and Corrientes which were prosperous and very aware of being part of an elite, plus the largest flow of investment from England in South America.

What you speak of is mostly true in Pacific nations and Bolivia.

The war also trained a sophisticated diplomatic corps, which gained them entree to the international scene as credible players.

They even got to exchange MAPS!! :D

At the same time, the War promoted national-awareness - patriotism, "us" - by that classic method, conflict with a "them". It helped that the Paraguay of the day would appear thoroughly alien to anybody normal.

Absolutely, specially Argentina, that was only recently united.


So the war was, essentially, the making of modern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

That's a tad too strong, as certainly Brazil was already established as a country, with a constitutional monarchy and the identity of being neither Portuguese nor Spanish-speaking, to say the least. What the war did was to set areas of influences (Uruguay under Brazil's, Paraguay under Argentina's), establish the borders for good and eliminate the presence of a bloodthirsty dictator in its midst.

[Tony]

Would the idea that Reagan defeated global communism and the USSR be considered historical revisionism?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Would the idea that Reagan defeated global communism and the USSR be considered historical revisionism?

I'm not quite sure which fallacy it would be (post hoc ergo propter hoc most likely) but it wouldn't be on par with Holocaust denial. It would also be a case of simplifying a very complex issue. One could label it historical revisionism, but it's not as if his policies in the 1980s had nothing to do with the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. Saying that President Reagan was directly responsible is simply incorrect because it ignores the role played by JP II and Lech Walesa in Poland, various seperatist leaders in the Baltics and, ironically, Gorbachev in the Soviet Union itself.

[Stormraven]

I've seen the 'beautiful people' myth, but let's not forget the other myth of primitivism - the Incompetent Primitive myth. Granted, it's not widely spread outside the UFO community, but it is there.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Letter to the editor in the Dallas Morning News on Sunday
Re: "Bush's war vs. Big One," by Tom Sullivan, Wednesday Letters.
Mr. Sullivan may not be aware there was massive resistance from our citizens to entering World War II. Then, as now in Iraq, we were virtually alone in fighting the Axis powers. Our only allies were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia and Russia.
We, of course, supplied virtually all of the eqiupment these allies used to fight the war. With the exception of Russia, one might note that we have the same allies today in the war in Iraq.
John K. Murtaugh, Rockwall

[Wolfman]

It is interesting to read all of this, as I am facing a very similar situation right now. Among other things, I've founded a non-profit organization that works with one of China's least-known minority groups, the Mosuo. The Mosuo are one of the few matriarchal/matrilineal cultures left in the world, and furthermore do not traditionally practice marriage, but rather can choose and change partners as they please. It is a very unique and fascinating culture, if you want to know more about it, you can click on the link in my signature below to go to our website; you can also read a much more detailed thread that I started specifically about the Mosuo at JREF here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72651).

Anyway, being a matriarchal/matrilineal culture, the Mosuo naturally get a lot of attention from feminist groups; and this is where the problem arises. Because by far the majority of feminists who go there to "study" the Mosuo are actually going there with a specific agenda of using the Mosuo to prove the "superiority" of female-run societies. Thus, in far too many cases, the actual truth gets lost under a mass of distortions and fantasies.

For example, if you Google "Mosuo", you'll quickly find links to sites that will tell you that the Mosuo have no words in their language for "murder" or "rape". This is true (partly, as I'll explain), but this is then expanded to make the claim that the reason these words don't exist is because, in the Mosuo culture, there is no rape or murder.

The FACTS are as follows: the Mosuo do not have specific words for "murder" or "rape", but they have general words for "kill" and "assault" which, when combined with other words ("deliberate killing" or "sexual assault") have those same exact meanings. And any Mosuo will tell you that not only do murders happen, but their mythology is full of stories of murder; and they have their own specific punishment (a slit throat) for any man committing rape...why have a punishment for a crime that "doesn't exist"?

Another popular revisionist claim is that the Mosuo's matriarchal culture, prior to takeover by the Communists (and imposed leadership by men), was a culture of peace, equality, etc. Again, the truth is very different. Historically, the Mosuo actually had a noble (land-owning) class, and a peasant (laborer) class. The noble class were patriarchal and patrilineal; the peasants were matriarchal and matrilineal. This proved to be a very beneficial system for the Mosuo nobility, because all inheritance was traced through the man's side of the family. But if a man went out and fooled around with the peasants, and produced a few illegitimate offspring, they were no threat to his position because their lineage was traced through the mother's side of the family. Thus, no peasant child would have claims to noble heritage...ever.

I've personally met Mosuo who were peasants under the nobles, and can tell stories about that time. They were treated as most peasants are usually treated...as inferiors. Education, standard of living, etc., were all much poorer for the peasants than for the nobility. Rather ironically, when the Communists took over and abolished "landlords" (including the Mosuo nobility), they also effectively abolished the patriarchal portion of Mosuo culture, leaving them almost entirely matriarchal (the exception to this is that Mosuo priests, called Daba, still follow patriarchal practices).

So much for the "equality for everyone" myth.

Now, don't get me wrong; I think that the Mosuo culture is a fascinating and valuable one, and has a lot that other cultures could learn from. But we're only going to learn by understanding the truth of their culture, not by building up fantasies to suit personal agendas.

In closing, just a mention of the most blatant and ridiculous "revision" of Mosuo history/culture that I've encountered thus far. A German woman who visited the Mosuo for one week, then returned home and, in her blog, stated that Mosuo women are all lesbians, and engage in sex with men only for purposes of procreation; the rest of the time, men are kept essentially as convenient labor. Not only is this completely untrue, it would be considered a gross insult by most Mosuo, who do place equal value on both genders.

[Chaos]

Would the idea that Reagan defeated global communism and the USSR be considered historical revisionism?

Since "global communism" actually was defeated, and the USSR actually did collapse, and Reagan actually was in office during that time, that idea is nowhere near the same league of lies and/or delusions that are the hallmark of historical revisionism.
It is, however, a gross insult to everyone else who did so much more than Reagan, including risking their own lives, to bring down communism and the USSR.

[CFLarsen]

Would the idea that Reagan defeated global communism and the USSR be considered historical revisionism?

How did he do that?

[Mercutio]

How did he do that?

Lists of questions, and demands for "evidence?". It's the only way anything ever gets done.





:D

[CFLarsen]

Lists of questions, and demands for "evidence?". It's the only way anything ever gets done.





:D

Cheeky.....

[Moufflon]

Leckie is quite correct - whenever we come upon a significant archaeological site or region and begin to dig, no matter how early the site is, more often than not there is evidence of warfare. The evidence may not necessarily be as direct as weapons and spearheads, either; one of the most telling indications of hostilities between two tribes or groups of people is if the two are in close enough proximity to make contact probable, yet there is a "no-man's land", an area between the two where no evidence of settlement can be found, and for good reason - that's where the hostile confrontations happened most often. But there was always conflict - if not between two or more tribes, then internecine. It's interesting to note that whenever a civilization developed the written word, the thing that was invariably written about first and most often was not their religion, or their "understanding of the balance of nature", but warfare - boasts of victory and conquest.

Hi Joshua Korosi,

Just to say that I liked your Cult Archaeology thread, too! There is indeed a huge amount of Woo of the Ancient World. I'm a Near Eastern archaeologist myself, and the place is a minefield of Goddess worshippers and aliens... If I can lend a hand with any debunkingness, let me know, if you like...

Can I take a tiny issue with what you wrote above, though? Firstly, it might be helpful to distinguish between warfare and interpersonal violence. For many Neolithic (i.e. agricultural) cultures of the ancient near east, there is often little unambiguous evidence for warfare - organised political violence. There's quite a bit for people hitting each other quite hard in the head, though.

Also, the very first writing in the Near East (from the site of Uruk) is not even about victories or warfare. The earliest texts say things like: "10 sheep. 5 units of barley." They're accounting tallies: extremely unromantic. We owe a huge slice of civilisation to... accountants.

But your point remains, that the first thing they started writing down weren't eco-friendly Nobel Savage lifestyle tips.

Cheers,
Moufflon

[UnrepentantSinner]

Since "global communism" actually was defeated, and the USSR actually did collapse, and Reagan actually was in office during that time, that idea is nowhere near the same league of lies and/or delusions that are the hallmark of historical revisionism.

Point of fact. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 while Bush 41 was in office. The rebellions in the Baltic states occured in '90 and '91 while Bush 41 was in office. The house arrest of Gorbachev and the siege of the Russian "White House" occured in '91 while Bush was in office. The dissolution of the Soviet Union occured through 1991 to 1993 while Bush 41 and Clinton were in office. But....

It is, however, a gross insult to everyone else who did so much more than Reagan, including risking their own lives, to bring down communism and the USSR.

...agree completely as I think I stated in my post above.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Thanks! :cool:

I noticed his hair colour too, but put it down to an effect of the mummification or post-mortem aging process. I have no evidence of that, though. Time to do a bit of research ...

BTW, count me in the Red-Headed League, although these days, I wouldn't pass the entrance exam. :(

bPer


ah but, did you know, that extensive historical research has found that all was wonderful in the bucolic paradise that was prehistoric earth ( where the pizza trees flourished - in many flavors ) before the coming of the evil redheads?

[Deus Ex Machina]

That explains the "bump" :) . (I've only just been referred here, having kicked Politics cold-turkey a while back.)

There are a few films set in Bosnia, or "Former Yugoslavia", but none from Hollywood that aren't action movies, I'm pretty sure. It could happen, though. Unlike Rwanda or Cambodia or Darfur, the Balkan atrocities occurred in a non-exotic, recognisable, modern setting. From mundane to nightmare, just like that.


the movie "Savior" with Dennis Quaid is a very moving depiction of the horror or Bosnia.

[Earthborn]

Would the idea that Reagan defeated global communism and the USSR be considered historical revisionism?Not by itself. It is just an exaggeration of his role. It just takes the "history is made by Great Leaders" approach to history that is so unpopular among historians but very popular in school history lessons.

But BPSCG's idea of how Reagan defeated the USSR (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2673699&postcount=85) is an astounding piece of historical revisionism. Usually revisionists are wise enough to cast doubt on things that are not entirely certain to add in their own narrative, or at the very least got the order in which things occured approximately right. Not BPSCG however; he claims that something that is well documented, was televised and which most of us lived through, happened in nearly the opposite order than it did.

[aerosolben]

"If Lincoln had let the South go then Federal power would be far weakened, therefore the USA would not intervene to the same extent in WW1, therefore Imperial Germany would not be defeated as badly, therefore the treaty of Versailles would not be as harsh, therefore the Nazis would not have been able to play on resentment of the treaty to gain power. Ergo, Lincoln caused Hitler, QED".
I think Harry Turtledove wrote a book about that.
Without Hitler, how would we have survived the alien menace? You should be thanking Lincoln that you are not currently enslaved by extraterrestrial overlords.

[Chaos]

Point of fact. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 while Bush 41 was in office. The rebellions in the Baltic states occured in '90 and '91 while Bush 41 was in office. The house arrest of Gorbachev and the siege of the Russian "White House" occured in '91 while Bush was in office. The dissolution of the Soviet Union occured through 1991 to 1993 while Bush 41 and Clinton were in office. But....

*snip*

Well I think of it this way... they started seriously losing altitude while Reagan was in office, which caused the dramatic crash during Bush I´s term, and the salvage effort during Clinton´s.

IIRC Bush I entered office in January ´89, right? I sorta kinda had front rows seats at some of the events back then, geopolitically speaking, and I distinctly remember the first craks appearing in the facade a long time before the Wall fell. People fleeing the eastern bloc, stuff like that... the border between Hungary and Austria seemed to leak like a sieve for some time.
You could even go further back and say that Walesa´s Solidarity movement (and the lack of an extremely bloody Prague Spring type crackdown against it) was the first sign of impending political collapse.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You could even go further back and say that Walesa´s Solidarity movement (and the lack of an extremely bloody Prague Spring type crackdown against it) was the first sign of impending political collapse.

Sorry to snip, but that was my point earlier. The roots of the fall of the Wall were in place long before Reagan's speech or the fall itself. Solidarity, John Paul II's efforts with the Poles, Glasnost and Perestroika, the moribund economy of the Soviet Union and their life-sapping support for other moribund economies like Cuba which really started effecting the Eastern Bloc in the 1970s (Mir was their only space success after Sayult ended for ex.). I mentioned the Baltics above, but the Caucuses and Central Asian SSRs also rebelled as 89-93 progressed. And as you mentioned the Iron Curtain in Central Europe had become more a sieve by that time as well.

To say that Reagan himself and and solely he was responsible for the disintigration of the Soviet Union is to ignore the efforts of people in Poland, Russia, the Vatican, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, East Germany and Afghanistan who helped it's demise.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If any mod sees this, could this thread be moved to the History or General Skepticism subforum since they would be more accurate locations for it than politics?

TYIA.

[Redtail]

US? As to your OP and the Egyptian Afrocentricism part, would not people of African decent be able to "claim that" what with Egypt being in Africa? Please don't think that I'm saying you're wrong and trying to slam you I just don't understand why Egypt seems to separated from the rest of Africa.

ETA: I should clarify. I went to an HBC/U for undergrad and I took many Black Studies courses. (Two more and I could have minored in it.) I have never heard some of the theories linked to Afrocenticism that I've seen posted recently. (here and in other places.) Like what you said about Ramses II and Blacks have a different way of looking at science. I mean I'm confused because as i said I went to undergrad at an HBC/U and I taught at a different HBC/U for three years and I've never heard of most of these claims.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You added your eta while I was doing a little wikisearch. :)

US? As to your OP and the Egyptian Afrocentricism part, would not people of African decent be able to "claim that" what with Egypt being in Africa? Please don't think that I'm saying you're wrong and trying to slam you I just don't understand why Egypt seems to separated from the rest of Africa.

That's an excellent and totally valid question. I'm not trying to say that Egypt isn't part of Africa nor should it be excluded from the study of the entire continent. My criticism of Egyptian Afrocentrism is that proponents seem to be claiming that it developed out of sub-saharan (or Nilo-Saharan) populations when there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.

Obviously Egypt had both trade and war with Nubia as represented in heiroglyphs and artwork, but they weren't a transplated or derived sub-saharan population.

ETA: I should clarify. I went to an HBC/U for undergrad and I took many Black Studies courses. (Two more and I could have minored in it.) I have never heard some of the theories linked to Afrocenticism that I've seen posted recently. (here and in other places.) Like what you said about Ramses II and Blacks have a different way of looking at science. I mean I'm confused because as i said I went to undergrad at an HBC/U and I taught at a different HBC/U for three years and I've never heard of most of these claims.

In my defense the OP is from over 5 years ago and I believe I the things I mentioned in that section came from a C-SPAN Book TV presentation I watched by an Afrocentrist author. Obviously Wikipedia wasn't as well known now, and I'm sure you're familiar with this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrocentrism), but I'd have cited it back then. There's also this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Ancient_Egyptians) which more specifically discusses what I did in the OP.

[dudalb]

The main problem I have with Historical "Revisionism" (at least as the term is commonly understood) is that inevitably it serves a political purpose. Most "Historical Revisionists" are not scholars looking at new evidence or taking a new look at evidence, but ideologues out to promote a political viewpoint under the guise of "correcting History".
"Revisionism" is a lousy term for the distoriting of history for the sake of a political agenda,since being open to new evidence and taking a fresh look at existing evidence is part of being a good historian, but the term is so commonly used that we will never be rid of it.
And it happens on all sides of the political spectrum. You can find "revisionists" on both the left and the right who are not "honest brokers" but distorting History to back their political agenda.