2 ms·
Probably a difference in epistemology. A historian should try to start with facts and primary sources and draw a conclusion from them. A revisionist starts from
by janalsncm 2y ago
Probably a difference in epistemology. A historian should try to start with facts and primary sources and draw a conclusion from them. A revisionist starts from a (perhaps politically motivated) conclusion and looks for facts to support that conclusion.
- moate 2y agoThis is the thing: When you "draw the conclusion" you're making shit up. "The roman empire collapsed" <all good "because..." <beginning of making shit up. All history books should begin with "A map is not the territory" to remind historians what's going on.