Historical Revisionism

File: quote-what-is-history-but-a-fable-agreed-upon-napoleon-bonaparte-20641.jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>>3312449
"""""""Revisionism"""""""""

Just an anti-dialogical buzzword for people scared to question their own historical outlook.

>>3312494
here's the (you) you're fishing for

>>3312494
Why on Earth should people question their historical outlook?
What do they gain from it?
I can see what outsiders gain from forcing a group into renouncing their history but I fail to see what's in it for the people being forced to change.

>>3312449
Well you can look at current happenings. Notice how out of seemingly nowhere statues are being yanked down or defaced. Particularly anti Columbus and Anti confederate actions. If you've been in a history department for the past while now you've heard murmering shit like
>we should have never honored Columbus did you know he was just a racist white male who mistreated natives horrible
or alterantaively you will see the newer reasoning on the civil war that seek to paint the south as nothing more than slave beating/whiping redneck retards and racist nazi's

Id say that seeing these narratives affect the fantasies of people in the real world is argument enough to how dangerous they are.

There's a tendency for historycucks to want to hide in their ivory tower yet croon on about how they wish their shit was more impactful on the outside world.

Well congrats after decades of revisionism they have managed to do some damage. So yea it's dangerous. People outta understand why orthodox faggots were orthodox and history as a study was so stable and reliable for so long. Morphing it for political purposes is clearly cancer

>>3312851
thanks for a serious question, i thought i'd only get the average "get back to /pol/" that seems to be the normal responce to nearly every thread asking questions.

I am not in the history department but it must be crazy to be teaching things only to be told falsehoods by either your students or even worse, by your superiors. They tried to revise history in czech when the communists were in but the general public was against it and now in the US they seem to be attempting a similar narrative push on education only so many people seem to support it, why?

>>3312449
pic related, Czechoslovakia never opressed the Krauts (but should have) and Sudety were never part of Germany "before the Versailles" as /pol/tards love to claim, so as you can see, its very dangerous because people can be baited very quickly by the things that can be debunked after like 5 seconds on internet.

>>3312925
What are you on about? That's true and all but especially because the Sudetenland was Austrian not German...
Hitler saw Austria as being part of Germany and so by his logic Sudetenland was Germany and the population of these areas were (if history shows correctly) largely German speaking. By how much ercentage? I don't know and how closely tied was their culture to Austria? I don't know. What i do know is that they were violent and should have seen the deportations coming.

>>3312851

Columbus was a prick though, he threatened any of his sailors who blabbed about not having actually reached the Indies, enriched himself while his men died in poverty and disease, and basically tyrannized anyone he was given authority over. He's like the Renaissance equivalent of Mark Zuckerburg.

File: Kraut BTFO.gif (463KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 480x270px

>>3312977
>Austrian
It was part of the land of crown of Bohemia, if you take it by that logic it was part of A-H, Transylvania shoudl be German because it was Austrian, also i dont care what autistic NEET thought, Austrians arent Germans, they are better.
And to the population, yes, it had higher population of Krauts, but it doesnt mean they shoudl annex it to the Reich, since their ancestros sworn allegiance to the Czech king, they dont have any right to demand separatism. (btw Beneš offered them autonomy, which was a thing they originaly asked for, they refused)

>>3313103
I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention this, is someone in disagreement with you? This thread is about historical revisionism did you accidentally click the wrong one?

File: ww3.jpg (35KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x333px

>>3313037
Definitely, but that's not the reason people want his shit gone.

If you want statues that need torn down just look at this. Fucking Braveheart.

>>3313037
The fact he was a prick doesn't invalidate his historical achievement and importance.

>Kick off the colonization of the New World, a series of events pivotal to our civilization and the state of the modern world.
>This is apparently outweighed by the fact he treated the natives harshly.

>>3313189
Wew

>>3313120
Historical revisionism is peopel claiming that we opressed the Krauts and that Sudety were part of Germany

>>3313206
oh right i see, i literally never heard that as a serious historical fact though

>>3312836
>Why on Earth should people question their historical outlook?
Yeah, why would historians want to reappraise our understanding on history based on new evidence and ideas, history and historiography without revision would be mytho-historical campire tales.

>>3313190
>This is apparently outweighed by the fact he treated the natives harshly

To be clear, its that he was a general cunt, not just to the natives.
And all he real did was start a gold rush, hardly a reason to close the banks for a day.

>>3313308
Considering we got where we are today through "mytho-historical campire tales", I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss its merits over modern historiographical methods which seem only to dissolve national identity and cultural institutions.

>>3313554
>And all he real did was start a gold rush, hardly a reason to close the banks for a day.
Yeah go fuck yourself.
We wouldn't be here today having this conversation if Colombus hadn't set out across the Atlantic.

whats with the moral relativism of you people? the general view during columbus' time was that natives are a resoruce and nothing more, either they convert to christianity or die.

That was the way of the times, and to judge them by our modern moral compass is futile and frankly stupid

>>3313638
>moral relativism
Your opinion is a moral relativist one you dumb fucking retard. Stop shitting out buzzwords that /pol/ has taught you are bad things without actually understanding what you are saying.

>>3313190

Portuguese would have done it anyway, they were the real badasses of the early exploration era.

>How dangerous/powerful is historical revisionism truly and should we pay attention to it?

The only historical revisionism which I believe to be genuinely dangerous or powerful is the kind that stirs up a victim mentality and allows people to surrender all moral agency and responsibility for current conditions.

This is the kind of reasoning that can lead to war, violence and even genocide.

That said even if it doesnt have the same consequences other forms of historical revisionism triggers the fuck out of me. For the same reason teaching pure creationism in schools triggers biologists. Although it can range from things like Chengis wuz a gud boi who just wanted to spread civilization (ie dubious interpretation) to the Gavin Menzies tier falsehoods like the Chinese had uranium mining colonies in Australia and personally started the Renaissance

>>3313571
>X wants to contort the study of history to suit their extreme, ideological totalist political views
>Y wants to unwind the study of history back to oral legends to suit their extreme, ideological totalist political views
So this... is the power... of horseshoe theory... woah

>>3313578
We wouldn't be having this conversation if some rat didn't take a dump in a specific spot a million years ago, are you going to honor him too?

File: 45.jpg (509KB, 1173x1600px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1173x1600px

>>3312449
There's nothing worst than historical revisionism, it makes people repeat mistakes.

Deliberate historical revisionism would only be implemented (and is) to political ends, to make false truth out of lies. Usually to discredit just opposition to evil, on the grounds that the evil (in a revised history) has always been common, and accepted, and so you are the anomaly and the alien for finding fault in it.