3 ms·
I suspect the reason for this piece is this bit buried in the middle: > It’s in the context of that reevaluation that we recently experienced a furor over whic
by toyg 4y ago
I suspect the reason for this piece is this bit buried in the middle:
> It’s in the context of that reevaluation that we recently experienced a furor over which date to assign to the beginning of American history. There are many candidates to consider: [...] Such debates, arising from different perspectives on the same evidence and constituting classic instances of revisionist history, are unlikely ever to be fully stilled
I.e. this is probably to be read in the context of an academic (or political) dispute about that subject. I guess someone proposed to move "the beginning of American history", someone else objected using the term "revisionism", and James M. Banner Jr. (a venerable 87-year-old historian) decided to weigh in and remind people of old truths about the field.
Personally, I think he's stretching the term a bit, at least in the modern (and negative) understanding of it; it's obviously true that the practice of historians requires constant re-evaluation, but the point should be to keep such efforts free of clear agendas - which is what "revisionist" tendencies typically have.
- brightball 4y ago“History began July 4, 1776. Everything before that was a mistake.” - Ron Swanson
- rufus_foreman 4y ago>> this is probably to be read in the context of an academic (or political) dispute about that subject Do a search for "1619 revisionist" if you want to know the context.
- toyg 4y agoThank you, that explains a lot (and matches the political profile of the author).
- everybodyknows 4y agoDDG search results are dominated by the usual right-wing cranks, but there's a bit of wheat to be found in the chaff: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/media/new-york-times-1619-project-criticism/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/media/new-york-times-1619-pro...
- rufus_foreman 4y agoI searched on Google before I posted, your Atlantic link comes up second in a Google search. The first two links on DDG (which I don't use) are for "The Patriot Post", which I've never heard of. If I search Google for "1619 revisionist patriot" the Patriot Post links don't come up, if I add "1619 revisionist patriot post" they finally do. To some extent you can control the Overton Window by controlling search results.
- UncleMeat 4y agoHistorians used the term first and in the context of their profession it does not have the connotation of working backwards from ideology and agenda. A primary project in the last 40 years of history research has been explicitly called "revisionist history" in the sense that professionals are re-examining well-trodden territory but from new and broader perspectives.