What's this site problem with the term "revisionism"? It seems apparent that the posters on several boards around this site, use the term revisionism as a way to insult the ideas of other posters and basically shitpost.
From the times I've visited this board, I've noticed that some of you are history students, so you are a bit more critical of the historical discipline and I'm sure you understand the concept of revisionism a lot better.
I'll give a small example related to a subject I'm knowledgeable about: the Mexican revolution. Once it "officially" ended and years later when the most important political party in Mexico was founded, the PNR (Partido Nacional Revolucionario), there was this fervent love for the revolution and its ideals: the lower class rights, the needs, and importance of the peasant and their right to their land, love for democracy and the demonization of the old government and the re-election practices.
However, decades later, around the 60s, historians began to question this idealization of the revolution and began to explore other perspectives, trying to answer questions like "was it a fair revolution?" or even "is the revolution actually over?", thus, a revisionism of Mexican historiography happened.
The same happened in the Soviet Union during the 60s and 70s, when groups outside the party decided to revise Marx's writings and the interpretation of the URSS about them. So, historic revisionism is something quite natural that happens over time, it's an adjustment for the times we live in.
However, many posters (with a /pol/ attitude I must add) use the term revisionism as a way to disqualify an argument. Heck, I may have said that it happened on this site, but I've seen it happen outside in real life. So why do you think it happens? Ignorance maybe? Are we living in a rather radical political environment where both sides are more propaganda than critical thinking?
People on 4chan misusing a word? How revolutionary.
Seriously though, I fucking hate the ongoing fight between far right and far left on this board, but it's probably better than being an echochamber for one political spectrum (like both /pol/ and /leftypol/).
>>1104351
> What's this site problem with the term "revisionism"?
Fringies can use the term to make new understandings in the main stream sound like fringe developments themselves.
>>1104370
>fringie
Please excuse me, I've never heard of that term before, would you mind explaining it?
>>1104380
As in "political fringe", "fringe science", "fringe history". Wackos on the edge of things.
>>1104388
Well, of course, people will use History as a tool to express their own political views, it has been one of its most important uses. However, even if that's the case, revisionism by itself is not a bad thing, because it gives us another perspective that we, as historians, missed. On time, revisionism becomes more critical of the subject it studies and it itself will be subject of a future revisionism. The concept by itself shouldn't be demonized but the way it is being done.
Is this revisionism done with a strict methodology and a strong theory backing it up trying to tell a new kind of history? Good. Is it sloppy and it is obvious propaganda? Then we have a problem.
>>1104397
There's also whitewashing type revisionism which has been used in official state histories since forever.
>>1104404
Yeah, of course, I'm not denying that. That's when you have to be a critical person and understand that what you're reading is propaganda, especially if it is official history. We need to always remember that, even if one of its more prominent uses is to justify actions, history's main objective is to explain our reality, our present, through the past.
Revisionism is not bad, but as I said, the method and objective of it is the wrong one and we should be able to criticize it with sources and intelligent arguments and not with just ideals or feelings.
>>1104351
Occasionally you'll hear it from Maoists insulting Stalin's ideology.
>>1104351
>take the ideology you disagree with
>place said term before "revisionism"
>shitposting complete
>>1104351
there is nothing wrong with proper revisionism, however there is much wrong with disingenious revisionism and fringe theories that label themselves as being properly revisionist like Holocaust denial and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy
>>1105456
This.
Revisionism is necessary, but when it's conducted with a political agenda in mind, it becomes an unscientific attempt at propaganda.
Just look at holocaust revisionism. It's almost always done with a political goal in mind.
>>1104365
Yeah, at least this board isn't a constant righ/left-wing circlejerk.
>>1105568
>at least this board isn't a constant righ/left-wing circlejerk
Let's hope that it doesn't get invaded by /pol/ kids.
>>1105568
All historiography is constructed with a political goal in mind.
>>1104351
/his/ major here
Revisionism is seen as positive and negative in academia. More so the latter for non-Post-Modernists. Don't pretend that it is seen solely in a positive light. Holocaust deniers, for example, are revisionists. Revisionism is generally seen derogatorily in academic circles.
tl;dr
Revisionism is derogative and is especially bad in light of post-modernism where social history trumps anything that actually happened and had an effect on the historiography.
>>1110754
OP here, I'm also a history major. I never said that it was completely positive, or negative, especially in academia. What I did say is that the term has been used as a way to disqualify arguments. Revisionism by itself is not good or bad, it's a natural adjustment of historiography to a new historic era.
Also, I did say in a latter post, that the concept by itself is not bad, but the way it is done is what makes it bad. You mention these holocaust deniers. Their revisionism is sloppy and it is obvious propaganda, it's not done with strict methodology and it is obvious propaganda.
HOWEVER, even this revisionism is useful in some way, for example, why are these revisionists popping out now? What compels them to want to make a revision of official history, especially one as extreme as this one?
Studying this perspective is what matters, even if this perspective is presented in a rather ignorant way.
