tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8262783067993808760.post4787432190636023169..comments2023-09-29T06:18:27.221-07:00Comments on Cosmic America: Much Ado About Revisionist HistoryM. Keith Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02444898713867430753noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8262783067993808760.post-33465092416169283172011-04-24T03:13:05.000-07:002011-04-24T03:13:05.000-07:00"The words â��revisionâ�� and â��revisionistâ..."The words â��revisionâ�� and â��revisionistâ�� have simply been reduced to a code for information that disgruntled would-be historians disagree with. "<br><br>I think this is reducing the concept of revisionism to its lowest common denominator and in effect you might be losing what it really means. You stated "Revision is what historians do," this is a tad simplistic. Of course, I do agree that a form of "revision" (though I would use the term, reassessment) is present in almost all historical scholarship. Indeed, each new generation of historians are products of their environment and will reflect on the past based on those values and morals. They have to have a basis for interpretation. But that is not what I have come to understand "revisionsim" as meaning.<br><br>For example, as Peter Novick describes in his wonderful book "That Nobel Dream," in the post Vietnam era there was this "cold war revisionism" that was spurred on by a "congenial climate." The goal was not a new and deeper understanding, it was political and the desire was for a "usable" past for present needs.<br><br>I think Bernard Bailyn described the dangers of revisionism and its aim best. He wrote, "There is always a need to extract from the past some kind of bearing on contemporary problems, some message, commentary, or instruction to the writer's age, and to see reflected in the past familiar aspects of the present." But without "critical control, this generates an obvious kind of presentism, which at worst becomes indoctrination by historical example." <br><br>Historical context, for one, is lost on students when this form of presentism is produced in the books they read or the schools they attend. So I don't see it as sour grapes when one historian challenges one's ability to disassociate themselves from the nature of the event. When one's emphasis is not on reassessing the past as honestly as possible and instead produces a "useable" historical past for an agenda today (and one political in nature) -- that is where the true concern about "presentism" lies. History becomes a device for the historian, not objective study.<br><br>ChrisChrishttp://www.soldierstudies.org/blognoreply@blogger.com