3 ms·

What's bad about revision? Isn't that what we're supposed to do when we write?

paganel 4y ago
Nothing bad per se, but as other people have mentioned in this thread, historical revisionism has been used for lots and lots of despicable things in the recent past, including genocide. Yes, we "all" (I include in here people interested in history) know that nations are "imagined communities" and we extensively like to quote Benedict Anderson on that. More exactly the "nation" as a term can be (and has been) quite easily de-constructed through revisionist means, but what do you do when the same line of thought is applied almost ad litteram by one of your powerful neighbours who happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world? (because that's what Putin actually said about Ukraine, that they're "not really a nation", that they're an "imagined community")
- watwut 4y ago
  > historical revisionism has been used for lots and lots of despicable things in the recent past, including genocide. Historical revisionism is also when those are uncovered later. First obviously, politically you get accusations of revisionism. And also quite literally, you are revising previous history. > More exactly the "nation" as a term can be (and has been) quite easily de-constructed through revisionist means, but what do you do when the same line of thought is applied almost ad litteram by one of your powerful neighbours who happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world? (because that's what Putin actually said about Ukraine, that they're "not really a nation", that they're an "imagined community") Then you are doing politics and not history. Putin is not doing history. All nations were made up at some point and that includes Russia. Maybe especially Russian nation. National movements became popular in 19th century. That is not even revisionism, that is just something most people don't think about. Nevertheless, Ukrainians have more then proven over very long period they have distinct identity and culture different from Russian one. It is much different culture and country then what you find in Russia.
  - paganel 4y ago
    > Then you are doing politics and not history. History is politics. Later edit: A very big, substantial, part of it, anyway. It is my belief that ignoring that aspect has brought lots of misunderstandings when it comes to history, both on how it is taught and on how it is perceived.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Politics is however not history. When Putin claims those, he is not engaging with history nor trying to interpret it. Instead, he has political project and is actively working toward what he wants to happen.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Historical memory is politics. History is fully embedded in the past.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Historical revisionism is also when those are uncovered later. First obviously, politically you get accusations of revisionism. And also quite literally, you are revising previous history. I don’t think any serious person has ever objected to updating history based on a new archaeological discovery, and that’s not what “revisionist history” refers to, at least as I understand it. > Then you are doing politics and not history. I’m inclined to agree, and in a certain sense it’s easy to say this about Putin, a politician, but what about when a historian is doing politics under the guise of history? How do we exclude their work from the histories which at least aspire to minimize bias?
    - watwut 4y ago
      > I don’t think any serious person has ever objected to updating history based on a new archaeological discovery, and that’s not what “revisionist history” refers to, at least as I understand it. I am NOT talking about that nor was person I responded to. What I responded to are frequent situation in which it was not talked about genocide and then history started to talk about those. When by the end of 80ties it became suddenly possible to talk about Stalin/Lenin crimes, that was revisionism too. Because status quo history at that time did not allowed info about Holodomor. > in a certain sense it’s easy to say this about Putin, a politician, Oh no, I am saying that Putin is straight up lying about history.
throwaway894345 4y ago
In addition to the other answers, I’ll also put forth the distinction between many individuals lending their unique interpretations based on their individual biases and a politically cohesive batch of historians revising expressly for political activist purposes. This is why academic heterodoxy is important. Note also that this all mirrors debates about the media, another epistemological institution with a high degree of political homogeneity (and a similar orientation as among historians), which also has a lot of folks who argue that journalists shouldn’t be obliged to pursue objective or neutral narratives because perfect neutrality and objectivity are unachievable (in other words, they implicitly argue that 99.9% objective, neutral reporting is no different than 0%).

Nothing bad per se, but as other people have mentioned in this thread, historical revisionism has been used for lots and lots of despicable things in the recent past, including genocide. Yes, we "all" (I include in here people interested in history) know that nations are "imagined communities" and we extensively like to quote Benedict Anderson on that. More exactly the "nation" as a term can be (and has been) quite easily de-constructed through revisionist means, but what do you do when the same line of thought is applied almost ad litteram by one of your powerful neighbours who happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world? (because that's what Putin actually said about Ukraine, that they're "not really a nation", that they're an "imagined community")

watwut 4y ago
> historical revisionism has been used for lots and lots of despicable things in the recent past, including genocide. Historical revisionism is also when those are uncovered later. First obviously, politically you get accusations of revisionism. And also quite literally, you are revising previous history. > More exactly the "nation" as a term can be (and has been) quite easily de-constructed through revisionist means, but what do you do when the same line of thought is applied almost ad litteram by one of your powerful neighbours who happens to have one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world? (because that's what Putin actually said about Ukraine, that they're "not really a nation", that they're an "imagined community") Then you are doing politics and not history. Putin is not doing history. All nations were made up at some point and that includes Russia. Maybe especially Russian nation. National movements became popular in 19th century. That is not even revisionism, that is just something most people don't think about. Nevertheless, Ukrainians have more then proven over very long period they have distinct identity and culture different from Russian one. It is much different culture and country then what you find in Russia.
- paganel 4y ago
  > Then you are doing politics and not history. History is politics. Later edit: A very big, substantial, part of it, anyway. It is my belief that ignoring that aspect has brought lots of misunderstandings when it comes to history, both on how it is taught and on how it is perceived.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Politics is however not history. When Putin claims those, he is not engaging with history nor trying to interpret it. Instead, he has political project and is actively working toward what he wants to happen.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Historical memory is politics. History is fully embedded in the past.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Historical revisionism is also when those are uncovered later. First obviously, politically you get accusations of revisionism. And also quite literally, you are revising previous history. I don’t think any serious person has ever objected to updating history based on a new archaeological discovery, and that’s not what “revisionist history” refers to, at least as I understand it. > Then you are doing politics and not history. I’m inclined to agree, and in a certain sense it’s easy to say this about Putin, a politician, but what about when a historian is doing politics under the guise of history? How do we exclude their work from the histories which at least aspire to minimize bias?
  - watwut 4y ago
    > I don’t think any serious person has ever objected to updating history based on a new archaeological discovery, and that’s not what “revisionist history” refers to, at least as I understand it. I am NOT talking about that nor was person I responded to. What I responded to are frequent situation in which it was not talked about genocide and then history started to talk about those. When by the end of 80ties it became suddenly possible to talk about Stalin/Lenin crimes, that was revisionism too. Because status quo history at that time did not allowed info about Holodomor. > in a certain sense it’s easy to say this about Putin, a politician, Oh no, I am saying that Putin is straight up lying about history.

throwaway894345 4y ago

In addition to the other answers, I’ll also put forth the distinction between many individuals lending their unique interpretations based on their individual biases and a politically cohesive batch of historians revising expressly for political activist purposes. This is why academic heterodoxy is important. Note also that this all mirrors debates about the media, another epistemological institution with a high degree of political homogeneity (and a similar orientation as among historians), which also has a lot of folks who argue that journalists shouldn’t be obliged to pursue objective or neutral narratives because perfect neutrality and objectivity are unachievable (in other words, they implicitly argue that 99.9% objective, neutral reporting is no different than 0%).