4 ms·

> Historical revisionism is also when those are uncovered later. First obviously, politically you get accusations of revisionism. And also quite literally, you

> 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.