Talk:Historical revisionism

	This History related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

I just cut out and moved this here

• '*The Dixiecrats were liberals/leftists, not conservatives, even though many of them, alongside conservative Republicans, formed and joined the Conservative Coalition in opposition to FDR's New Deal, and this coalition released the "Conservative Manifesto", which emphasized state's rights and small guv'mint. Then there's the fact that they hated liberals so much they tried to break off from them and form their own far-right paleoconservative party, twice
  

This starts off by stating that these folks were "liberal/leftists" and ends up stating that they "hated liberals." This is not very rational. Carptrash (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the first part is supposed to be a myth & the second part a refutation of it, but it's not very clear where the one ends & the other begins. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if the myth that "The Dixiecrats were liberals/leftists," exists I sure missed it. Carptrash (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find examples by googling liberal dixiecrats, for example [1] or [2] and strongly implied here and here's Ann Coulter with a very similar story (which of course veers off into red-baiting half a page later). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Ann Coluter's book, but I don't see those other sources suggesting that Dixiecrats were liberals or leftists. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit less blatant than that. Essentially, it's a guilt by association strategy, suggesting that "liberals" (read: Democrats) are responsible for Dixiecrats and to fudge the switcheroo that attracted these racists to the GOP, following the Southern strategy, and to live on the laurels of Lincoln. The idea is that the GOP is the "real" civil rights party, unlike those dastardly Dixiecrats and Democrats who are "really" all the same. It also ignores that some (former) Dixiecrats actually changed their views on segregation. Basically, it's using a situation prior to the realignment which saw the racists leave the Democrats to flock to the GOP and use that to paper over the current state of affairs. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I wandered over to the links posted above. The first one, I find, begins with "The left is quite annoyed that myself and others.” “Myself and others?” Why would I even care what someone with such terrible grammar would have to say? He then goes on to support his stance with " A Patriot’s History of the United States.” The author of that was a regular commentator on Fox News and one reviewer of the book wrote, ""the authors make claims that are not even remotely endorsed by the footnoted sources”. This is a familiar complaint from those, such as myself (see, the word can be used properly), who attempt to co-edit with these folks on wikipedia. Enough for me. At another of the sources I discovered, "Blacks have been brainwashed by the myth of the Southern Strategy.” Brainwashed? Good god!” Blacks got to live through the "Southern Strategy.” The Black understanding of this strategy did not come from Northern liberals but from a day-to-day, hour-to-hour living with it.Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't saying it was a particularly brilliant case, just that you can actually find some versions of this (bizarre) version of history.

Now, between Google's increasing penchant for "personalising" searches and the fact that whacko sites may simply be ranked very low in their hits, I can't be exactly sure of this, but it did seem to me as if liberal debunkings of "The Dixiecrats were liberals/leftists"-story far outnumbered those peddling the myth itself. However, this is simply based on scrolling through the first 4 or 5 pages of hits and not any kind of rigorous study.

If my impression is correct, it suggests a couple of things to me. First, it illustrates how crucial the "civil rights identity" is to "liberal" self-understanding so that any, even an obscure, challenge to it leads to a flood of responses. Secondly, these responses also works as attacks on "conservatives" or "right wingers" in general, though in the few cases I looked at, the sources of the "liberal Dixiecrat"-myth were conspicuously absent: who were actually promoting this myth? Not to mention that this comes perilously close to a similar conflation to Dixiecrats=Democrats but now between obscure wingnuts trying to rewrite history and the GOP in general (not that the party really needs any more nutballs...). Thirdly, it is possible to find some versions that at least broadly match the core of the myth as presented here: The conflation of Dixiecrats and "civil rights Democrats", the attempt at removing the GOP from the equation, and the general obscuration of the realignment of U.S. politics between the late '60s and mid-'70s. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a single source stating that "the Dixiecrats were liberals", let alone "leftists", or anything comparable to this, so it seems like a pointless think to refute. I'm aware that Republicans often point out that southern Democrats supported segregation & use this to smear the modern day Democrat Party, as covered in our Dixiecrat fallacy article, but pretending that this is framing Dixiecrats as "liberals/leftists" is a complete strawman. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then why not insert the Dixiecrat fallacy on the list instead? It is a form of historical revisionism because it's extremely selective in its presentation of history. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Might want to protect this page

I'll try to keep an eye on it, but when I looked, some wingnut changed my edit to revise history to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and was about states' rights. --ShorinBJ (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So far, we only have a single edit by a drive-by BoN, so it's probably not necessary, yet. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It was about states rights. The right in those states to own other human beings as property. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think so. I was also concerned because it's just the sort of page that would be a target right now, with people getting defensive of the whole Lost Cause thing. --ShorinBJ (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You draw some pretty fine lines

where Historical revisionism and pseudohistory are concerned. It seems to me that pseudo history is the process by which Historical revisionism sometimes takes place. I notice that we (if I may use that pronoun regarding Rationalwiki) include Holocaust denial in both categories and no one seems to be demanding that it be one or the other. We state that Historical revisionism "is a practice in historiography in which a historian reinterprets traditional views of causes and effects, decisions, and evidence." That is what the Afrocentric revision of history does. I am inclined to undo your edit here but usually prefer to discuss it before doing it. The give-you-a-fair-trial-before-hanging-you process. Carptrash (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I consider Holocaust denial to be pseudohistory, and I suspect it appears in both categories, because Holocaust denialists like to style themselves as historical or Holocaust revisionists (because it sounds a lot nicer than Holocaust denialists). However, that doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't pseudohistory (as their arguments have all been thoroughly debunked, yet they just bang on regardless).

Similarly, the "Cleopatra (VII) was black"-claim is pseudohistory, because it's so easily debunked. In fact, someone would have to be pretty ignorant of Cleopatra and her historical context and lineage to even make the claim in the first place. It's certainly not just being ridiculed because of some institutional racism as the paragraph I deleted seemed to imply.

If you want to include "Cleopatra was black", then list it among "unsavoury types" (though I can't quite see it fitting into any of the existing subcategories, so perhaps you need to create a new one?), because the claim basically tosses history out the window in favour of a "more ideologically convenient" conclusion. In this sense, "Cleopatra was black" is effectively tantamount to denialism, because it denies well-documented and -established bits of the historical record. I suppose that the level of historical illiteracy necessary to subscribe to "Cleopatra was black" might actually merit it a place alongside Caribou Barbie's version of Paul Revere or her even loonier sister wingnut's take on John Quincy Adams - especially if someone tried to systematically wandalise WP pages associated with Cleopatra. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In the wikipedia article "Historical revisionism (negationism)” we find, "Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. “ I guess it is the latter that I am putting this example of afro-centric history into. Hollywood, (another place whose historical revisionism should be included, though perhaps I will do that in pseudohistory instead,) is, according to some, based on the concept of the ‘’willing (willful?) suspension of disbelief.” So is the "Cleopatra was black” idea, it is just amazing to me how many folks are willing to do just that. Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cool enough, I simply misunderstood the point you were making. As long as it's under the "not legitimate" rubric, I have no problem in putting it here.

Perhaps we need a third group for Hollywood as it isn't necessarily about either trying to highlight a hitherto neglected area or interpretation of history ("legitimate historical revisionism") or (usually) about deliberately misrepresenting history (the "unsavoury" variety), but simply stems from not caring about historical details or accuracy if they clash with the story the film wishes to tell; nor does Hollywood normally even pretend to give anything like a correct view of history (hence TV Tropes' entry on "Hollywood History").

Unfortunately, some Hollywood films become far more influential in the public's perception of history than actual works of history, e.g. Oliver Stone's JFK with its überconspiratorial polemics and outright fabrication such as the (in)famous "magic bullet" (which wasn't magic at all, but easily explainable once actual ballisticians are consulted and factors such the special seating arrangement of JFK's car etc. are included). Thus, JFK is far closer to "unsavoury" historical revisionism than the usual Hollywood carelessness and you could take Birth of a Nation as an example from the other end of the political spectrum. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I recently watched the movie ‘’’Troy.’’’ If we pretend for a moment that what Homer came up with was “history” then the version presented in the movie was painful. Actually even if we do not accept it as history it was still painful, but . . ….. Anyway one major transgression was having, the Greek “villain” Agamemnon get killed, thus depriving Aeschylus of one of his major claims to fame.

Then there is the recent trend in “alternate history” in which the Germans invade and conquer Britain in WWII or Hitler and all the major Nazi leaders getting blown up or the South winning the US Civil War, etc. Since no one is expected to take them seriously as history we don’t need to deal with them here. but they did come to mind and I seem to be in a fairly unccensored mindset now.

Also. I don’t care so much about what of my edits remain in the article as I do about having this discussion. The journey IS the destination.Carptrash (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian War

I got a revert on my removal of the debate about genocide in Bosnia from the "Moonbat" section. I based my edit on this History News Network article by David Gibbs. Gibbs originally published his research for this at an university affiliated journal.

"The heated rhetoric associated with the Srebrenica issue has helped to debase public discussion and civility. At the recent UN Security Council debates, for example, British diplomat Peter Wilson stated that 'Genocide occurred at Srebrenica. This is a legal fact.' Ambassador Power too has stated that the Srebrenica 'genocide is a proven fact,' as if no reasonable person could disagree."

"These statements are both dogmatic and inaccurate. While the facts of what happened at Srebrenica are generally accepted, the interpretation of these facts as constituting genocide has been challenged by such leading academics as William Schabas (who served as President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars) and Ian Buruma. With regard to the 2003 court decision that established the idea of a Srebrenica genocide, extended critiques have been published in the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal and the Slavic Review."

Is it more rational to listen to the government, or to listen to the scholars? I guess you know where I stand on this.-RPG5 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

How about listening to the man in charge of the massacre? A man who was not only convicted of genocide but outright told his superiors that their orders constituted genocide. Comrade GC (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comrade GC, you're kind of proving the point of the article aren't you? --RPG5 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And your dodging my point, General Mladić the man convicted of genocide stated to the leading Serbian officials: "People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that.... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr. Krajišnik and Mr. Karadžić will explain that to the world. That is genocide." The Srebrenica massacre also helped coin the term "Ethnic cleansing" which itself is synonymous with genocide. While I will agree with your source in the opinion that using Srebenica as an excuse for even more US interventionalist policies is reprehensible I would also like to point out that it checks all the boxes for genocide, whether you like or not. Comrade GC (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'd like to also point out that scale does not determine whether an act is genocide but intent. Comrade GC (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC).

Genocide is a subsection of ethnic cleansing, but they're not "synonymous." If that were the case, then the Kosovo Albanians would be guilty of genocide on a vast level (even before you bring their organ harvesting into the situation), and I assume you don't agree with that.-RPG5 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking me if I believe that the KLA committed genocide then the answer is yes. Comrade GC (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Please place the (:) in front of your comments, it helps keep the talkpage from becoming muddled. Comrade GC (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Negationism

Circular link ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:91AD:BCE1:4BAC:3C36:E2ED:74B3 / talk}