Do the revisionists belittle history?

[Law of Loud]

It upsets me that the revisionist historians hold so much sway in our modern culture. They belittle and mock remarkeable histories such as that of the Crusades, and they also show a remarkeable tendency in glorifying other cultures while dismissing the Europeans as barbaric or ignorant. Why have these revisionist historians become so prominent today that they infest every facet of life, from our school textbooks to the novels that we read?


For those who are unfamiliar with the background of the Crusades, unlike what is taught by the revisionists, they were not simply an invasion of the Holy Land. In fact, for quite some time the Byzantine Empire had been taking heat from the Muslim empires on its border, and it was in need of aid from the European mainland. In response to this, the force of mainland Europe was driven into the Holy Land with surprising success, which both allieviated the pressure on Byzantium, while also returning the Holy Land to European control. If one is to consider it, the crusaders often spoke of the "re-conquest" of the Holy Land. I will not deny that there were clearly atrocities committed during the Crusades, but to claim that they are entirely one sided is quite ridiculous. Certainly, some of the later Crusades had clearly lost their sense and the purpose of the early Crusades, but to belittle this segment of history as is often done is rather provincial. It is also akward that the revisionists are so quick to criticize the Crusades, and yet they will not admit that the Muslims had done quite similiarly. For example, remember the Battle of Tours where Charles Martel repulsed the Muslim invasion of Europe? And what about the Muslim conquest of much of Spain, for which Crusades were led to reconquer these fallen lands? What of the Muslim conquest of much of the Byzantine Empire? Why are these modern historians so quick to shortsightedly mock a rich history, while they aptly glorify another who's past is no better?

 

[Russebby]

It upsets me that the revisionist historians hold so much sway in our modern culture. They belittle and mock remarkeable histories such as that of the Crusades, and they also show a remarkeable tendency in glorifying other cultures while dismissing the Europeans as barbaric or ignorant. Why have these revisionist historians become so prominent today that they infest every facet of life, from our school textbooks to the novels that we read?

It behooves you, before you start throwing the term REVISIONIST HISTORY around like a five-year-old who just found his daddy's gun, to back up for a second and consider what the term actually means. Revisionist history has two separate and very distinct meanings.

The first meaning of revisionist history is the understanding that history is not a perfect science, that historical documents of the past were written with different agendas than histories are written today, and that one has to take into consideration the motives of the writer to gain a deeper perspective. Almost all history written before about 1750 was written more as poetry and fable than actual historical record. Read any great historian's work before that time--Herodotus, Procopius, the Venerable Bede, Gregory of Tours, Sir Thomas More. You will find that most of what they wrote was not based on fact, but in terms of placing their particular country within a world context. Herodotus lived fifty years after the Greeks defeated the Persians, and in his history of the wars he wrote some rather outlandish things, like Egyptian history being over 11,000 years old and including elements of the Iliad. Procopius's Anecdota was written after the deaths of Justinian and Theodora, and as such it is a scandalous piece that has been accepted as fact for over 1300 years. Medieval English historians say the English people as direct descendents of Troy. Sir Thomas More's history of Richard III painted the monarch as a hunchbacked ogre who killed children to get to the throne.

Since these histories were written, the actual record has been revised time and again. Because of many re-evaluation of documents, new forensic techniques, and the use of archaeology to corroborate the historical record, we have a much different view of these worlds than the men who wrote about them. As such, we know Herodotus's age for Egypt was less than half of his original estimate, that Procopius had a vendetta against the vacillating Justinian and the headstrong Theodora, that the British of the Dark Ages were a motley of Germanic, Celtic, and Romance peoples. And we know that More's portrait of Richard III was a gross misrepresentation, most likely commissioned by John VI, the real murderer of the Boys in the Tower.

As such, because modern history is more based on fact than nationalistic identity, history is being revised out of necessity. There is still a great deal to be learned from the original histories in terms of attitude of people and general class structure, but as far as fact goes, revision is absolutely necessary.

But I don't think you refer to this necessary revision of history. I think you are referring to the more recent historical fad of the last 40 years or so, the politically correct mantra to alter the eurocentric way history has been written for the last three centuries. While I agree there are aspects of it that leave plenty to be desired--the inherent accusation of WASP cultural domination of the world, for example--revisionism seeks to be inclusive, and for the first time, we are getting histories that include the sagas of peoples who never appeared human in the past. You might say "typical liberal" and leave it at that, but I think this revisionism is absolutely necessary as we enter an age of global unity. I think it is absolutely necessary to show through the social stiudies where each race fits, how each segment of society was affected by a war or an invention or an era.

I defend "revisionist history", so long as it is done responsibly and accurately.

To the comment that revisionists consider the Crusade-era Europeans barbaric, all I can say is, isn't that how Europeans saw the rest of the world for centuries? Even deep into the 20th century, Europeans saw Africans as subhuman, Arabs and Native Americans as pests, and Jews as vermin. I don't think I am doing a lot of "revising" to be able to say that.

More specifically, I think I have a good grasp on medieval history, and I personally believe that the initial wave of Crusaders, as initiated in 1096, were indeed barbaric. In 1095 Pope Urban II received a distress letter from King Alexios I of Constantinople, seeking military help to fend off the Seljuk Turks, a people who in that era were nominally Islamic and racially not related to the Arabic peoples. So the Turks of 1096 should not be considered at all related to the Arabs and Moors that invaded Europe through Spain in the 8th century. But this didn't matter much to Urban II, whose bull and oration on the matter consisted of a call to arms throughout Christendom to rescue Palestine from the infidel Muslims--never mind that the Turks were about 600 miles to the north of Jerusalem, and never mind that at that time, Palestine was under Muslim control, but it was a rather peaceful control. Urban was able to unite Europe in a way that Charlemagne would be envious of--by initiating the general European racial and nationalist zeal, and, more importantly, by offering complete absolution for one's sins if he went to the Holy Land to fight, Urban stirred up Europe, and many kings mustered ragtag armies for this end.

One of the first things these armies did as they made their way across Europe is they "practiced" on some of the lesser peoples of the continent. And when Europeans need target practice, who do they pick on? That's right, the Jews. In 1096 mercenary armies started slaughtering Jews in the Rhineland with the religious zeal Urban had shaken up inside them. The enemy was 1500 miles away, but the Christians needed little excuse to let their constant hate for the Jews to boil over. As such, before the Crusaders even made it halfway to Constantinople, they were already murdering non-Christians.

When they finally got to Constantinople, the Crusaders had little intention of defending Alexios from the Turks. If anything, the animosity between the Byzantine king and the ruffian Crusaders was mutual--the Crusaders saw the king as an obstacle to crossing the straits between Greece and Asia Minor, and Alexios saw the Crusaders as if they were Hell's Angels camping in the park, unbathed, hairy, uncooth, vandalizing everything they touched. The whole morass began when Alexios asked Urban for help, and this is the help that came, and that help had no intention of doing anything more than pass through and use up anyone and anything they could get their hands on.

I think I have a pretty good undersatanding of the First Crusade, what do you think? As such, yes, I think the initial wave of Crusaders were barbaric, and they proved it long before they ever got to Jerusalem.

For those who are unfamiliar with the background of the Crusades, unlike what is taught by the revisionists, they were not simply an invasion of the Holy Land. In fact, for quite some time the Byzantine Empire had been taking heat from the Muslim empires on its border, and it was in need of aid from the European mainland. In response to this, the force of mainland Europe was driven into the Holy Land with surprising success, which both allieviated the pressure on Byzantium, while also returning the Holy Land to European control. If one is to consider it, the crusaders often spoke of the "re-conquest" of the Holy Land. I will not deny that there were clearly atrocities committed during the Crusades, but to claim that they are entirely one sided is quite ridiculous. Certainly, some of the later Crusades had clearly lost their sense and the purpose of the early Crusades, but to belittle this segment of history as is often done is rather provincial. It is also akward that the revisionists are so quick to criticize the Crusades, and yet they will not admit that the Muslims had done quite similiarly. For example, remember the Battle of Tours where Charles Martel repulsed the Muslim invasion of Europe? And what about the Muslim conquest of much of Spain, for which Crusades were led to reconquer these fallen lands? What of the Muslim conquest of much of the Byzantine Empire? Why are these modern historians so quick to shortsightedly mock a rich history, while they aptly glorify another who's past is no better?

Four major problems with your brief summary of the Crusades:

1--The Turks were nominally Muslim, but racially they are not related to the Arabics that invaded Spain 300 years before. That would be like blaming Protestants for the Holocaust because Hitler was a German. Generalizing all Islamic peoples has been a flaw in eurocentric history for centuries, and it is high time we start acknowledging the differences in peoples, just as Europeans demand acknowledgement between Serb and Croat, Frenchman and Brit, German and Pole.

2--You basically said yourself that as the Crusades wore on, they lost their focus. Why can you criticize this era in European history, but "revisionists" can't?

3--Byzantium hardly felt a release of pressure because of the First Crusade. From 1096 until Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, the capital became a whipping boy. For the general two centuries of the Crusades, Constantinople was the city through which all landfaring Crusaders had to cross, and after the first Crusade, Byzantine kings became more and more weary of them, and Crusaders grew more and more tired of rising tolls to cross the Bosporus into Asia. In 1204--barely a century after the initial call of the crusaders--the mercantile city of Venice sacked Constantinople, taking with them the extravagant riches of the great Byzantine capital; look in the great museums of Venice, and you can still see the plunder. In the 1350's Constantinople was as ravaged by the Black Death as any other city in Europe. By the 1450's, after centuries of Crusaders, of Venetian plunderers, of Turkish invasion, and of bubonic plague, the city once and for all fell to the Ottoman Turks. So please, don't tell me that Constantinople was hunky-dory after Alexios asked Urban for help. In actuality, asking the Pope for help might have been the absolute worst thing he could have done.

4--Lumping the Reconquista of Spain with the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land is erroneous in the least, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. Remember the story of how the Crusaders slaughtered the Jews in the Rhineland in 1096? Imagine over 400 years of systematic slaughter in Spain. Imagine the Holocaust lasting four centuries. Initially, the Catholics forged a business relationship with the Jews during the Reconquista era, but as the Christians took more land, this relationship became frayed. By the year 1450, with most of Iberia conquered, the Catholics started their own brand of ethnic cleansing to rid the peninsula of infidels once and for all. The Inquisition began as a Catholic attempt to keep the conversi--the "christianized" Jews--to their commitments to Jesus; in reality, the Jews just said whatever they felt they had to to keep the authorities off their back, but in private they still practiced Judaism. The Inquisition initially went after the conversi, but as it wore on it went after many Muslims and everyday Jews. And you have to remember that we aren't just talking about men--many women and children were victimized by the torturous tactics. More barbarism if you ask me.

I do think you have a point concerning the politically correct aspects of revisionist history. But I think before you start talking about history of any time and place, do a little more than just repeat what you heard. The reason why revisionist history is absolutely necessary is because of summarized histories like the one you wrote, full of inaccuracies that are misleading and dangerous.

 

[Russebby]

This is only a frikkin test

 

[hemis]

It upsets me that the revisionist historians hold so much sway in our modern culture. They belittle and mock remarkeable histories such as that of the Crusades, and they also show a remarkeable tendency in glorifying other cultures while dismissing the Europeans as barbaric or ignorant. Why have these revisionist historians become so prominent today that they infest every facet of life, from our school textbooks to the novels that we read?

They seek to alter the perception of history for their alteration of the perception of the presetn, and the ambitions of the future to alter as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the background of the Crusades, unlike what is taught by the revisionists, they were not simply an invasion of the Holy Land. In fact, for quite some time the Byzantine Empire had been taking heat from the Muslim empires on its border, and it was in need of aid from the European mainland. In response to this, the force of mainland Europe was driven into the Holy Land with surprising success, which both allieviated the pressure on Byzantium, while also returning the Holy Land to European control. If one is to consider it, the crusaders often spoke of the "re-conquest" of the Holy Land.

Just think of Byzantinium as an extended border to the rest of European nations, the volga region as a backdoor entrance, and the Mediterranean as a land mass need to be crossed with assistance of ships. Germany, England, and the rest of the European nations sought to fend off the Muslims as a step to secure their own borders: the closer they get, the more of a threat they pose, so how can they pose a threat if they cannot even make it into Byzantinium? What is to secure safety when the foul scum of the Middle East has conquered Turkey and then is on its way to Macedonia? This is exactly what happened when Alexander the Great envaded Arabia, neighbouring nations all had the same thought of 'will we be next?' It is through this forsight that apprhended the Crusades.

I will not deny that there were clearly atrocities committed during the Crusades, but to claim that they are entirely one sided is quite ridiculous. Certainly, some of the later Crusades had clearly lost their sense and the purpose of the early Crusades, but to belittle this segment of history as is often done is rather provincial. It is also akward that the revisionists are so quick to criticize the Crusades, and yet they will not admit that the Muslims had done quite similiarly. For example, remember the Battle of Tours where Charles Martel repulsed the Muslim invasion of Europe? And what about the Muslim conquest of much of Spain, for which Crusades were led to reconquer these fallen lands? What of the Muslim conquest of much of the Byzantine Empire? Why are these modern historians so quick to shortsightedly mock a rich history, while they aptly glorify another who's past is no better?

War is hell. Because it is not written of does not mean it is not so. Who knows of the atrocities of the Europeans that were not recorded? The revisionist as you call them, simply want the world to be at peace: so by labeling the Crusades as wrong gives them the ability to control the thoughts of others into shame for the actions taken. What of the Muslims in Spain? What of the Romans in Arabia? Who provoked who? Who is wrong and who is right? 3 years ago 4 planes were hijacked by men of Middle Eastern disent, and the used these planes as weapons to wage war, not terror. So the result is we invade a nation, one of many nations mind you, that hold these so called terrorist. Then just a few short years we invade another of these nations. Are there any next? Seems as if the Crusades have not stopped, only taken on a different form. Notice the British presence in India and China, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Germans in Africa, the Americans in South/Central America, and the French in Vietnam.

Do not think to yourself that these events will never happen again, because they are happening now as we type and read, only on smaller scales. We are being manipulated by words such as 'terrorist', 'ethnic cleansing', 'fundamentalist', and 'axis of evil'. This is the true cold war, diverting the masses' attention to what is really going on.

The Crusades should be looked upon as the great deeds of even greater men to save the very essence of our civilization.

 

[oldrooster]

Revisionisim exists to belittle White Anglo-Saxon culture, and to give achievements and merits to cultures that did not deserve them. People that practiced cannibalisim and human sacrafice should not be put up on a pedestal as pure native culture. They were little better then their forfathers who learned to walk erect.

 

[Russebby]

Revisionisim exists to belittle White Anglo-Saxon culture, and to give achievements and merits to cultures that did not deserve them. People that practiced cannibalisim and human sacrafice should not be put up on a pedestal as pure native culture. They were little better then their forfathers who learned to walk erect.

Spoken like a real student of the human condition. Way to keep an open mind. When you feel like discussing history on a level higher than the adolescent liberal-kicking you seem to be fond of, let me know. I'll be over here, hugging the tree.

 

[Tours732]

Though the Crusades are certainly not something we as Christians or Europeans should be proud of, I think they need to be looked at in their proper context, rather than a 21st century humanist perspective. To Christians of the middle ages, it would have been perfectly normal to believe that they should be the ones ruling the Holy Land, and that whatever methods to achieve that end would be justified.

Obviously the Crusades were an example of some of the most senseless violence and savagery. But the world was a savage place. I think that because the Eurocentric view of history was presented as fact for so many years, the pendulum has swung back the other way, and in some cases too far. We have some pretty terrible things to answer for, it's true, but we do not stand alone in that respect. For example Genghis Khan and the Mongol Hordes carried out atrocites every bit as disgusting as anything that went on during the Crusades, and on a larger scale, yet he seems to be remembered more as a brilliant military commander (which he was) than as a mass murderer. Why is he not villified in the same way as the Crusaders were when they killed every person they could lay their hands on in the sack of Jerusalem?

With respect to the 1400 year clash between the West and Islam, the politically correct view seems to be that the West has been the sole aggressor, with one dastardly assault after another on the peaceful Islamic World (who apparently never aggressed against anyone), and that this is something we should be apologizing for to this day. The fact is, aggression went both ways, and up until the renaissance, the Islamic World clearly had the upper hand. Vienna was under siege by the Ottoman Empire as late as 1683. This was nothing less than imperialism, though it seems to be rarely described as such.

The point is, I do think that some modern historians are guilty of putting other civilizations on a pedestal, while at the same time trashing the West. Don't get me wrong, I believe in taking an honest approach to history and acknowledging the wrongs that have occurred. But I don't think people should be made to feel guilty about the sins of their ancestors.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Christopher Fox]

History must be revised constantly. I find it worrying that anybody would think otherwise. The aim of all historians has to be a quest for the truth. Not to find a random scattering of facts to support their own preconceived ideas (and sometimes their prejudices) I say this in a general sense. In a more specific sense I would pose the question, what exactly is gained by applying a Christian whitewash to the history of the Crusades? If you believe, as most sensible historians do, that the crusaders were a band of murderous thieves, why pretend that they were otherwise?

Chris.

 

[Christopher Fox]

Revisionisim exists to belittle White Anglo-Saxon culture, and to give achievements and merits to cultures that did not deserve them. People that practiced cannibalisim and human sacrafice should not be put up on a pedestal as pure native culture. They were little better then their forfathers who learned to walk erect.

Interesting. You claim to be a Christian, therefore I assume you seek to love your fellow man, yet you are a racist. How do you reconcile these conflicting philosophies within yourself?

 

[Tours732]

History must be revised constantly. I find it worrying that anybody would think otherwise. The aim of all historians has to be a quest for the truth. Not to find a random scattering of facts to support their own preconceived ideas (and sometimes their prejudices) I say this in a general sense. In a more specific sense I would pose the question, what exactly is gained by applying a Christian whitewash to the history of the Crusades? If you believe, as most sensible historians do, that the crusaders were a band of murderous thieves, why pretend that they were otherwise?

Chris.

I agree with you completely. I don't know if your post was directed at me, but my post was not an attempted whitewash of the Crusades. I think it's simply useful to realise that while the Crusaders were murderous thieves, they lived in a murderous, thieving age. And they were not alone.

 

[xMinionX]

Revisionisim exists to belittle White Anglo-Saxon culture, and to give achievements and merits to cultures that did not deserve them. People that practiced cannibalisim and human sacrafice should not be put up on a pedestal as pure native culture. They were little better then their forfathers who learned to walk erect.

Nothing wrong with going back and making sure you got it right the first time. Nothing wrong with changing it if you did get it wrong. Stubbornly sticking with one view is... well, stubborn.

 

[Christopher Fox]

I agree with you completely. I don't know if your post was directed at me, but my post was not an attempted whitewash of the Crusades. I think it's simply useful to realise that while the Crusaders were murderous thieves, they lived in a murderous, thieving age. And they were not alone.

No Tours732, my post was not aimed at you. It was actually aimed at this thread's opening post. I thought your point about seeing the violence of the Crusades in context was both intelligent and well-made.

Chris.

 

[LondonsBurning]

I was told my my professor today that a new look at History is becoming provalent., "The Minimalist movement", that assumes that all History is fiction until it can be proven without a doubt. This is revisionist History in its purest form and is certainly belittling History.

 

[Russebby]

I was told my my professor today that a new look at History is becoming provalent., "The Minimalist movement", that assumes that all History is fiction until it can be proven without a doubt. This is revisionist History in its purest form and is certainly belittling History.

According to minimalist history, the world began at about the year 1600?

That is the era of history we are currently in, one that demands factual evidence.

That does not mean, however, that ancient and medieval histories are worthless. Even if certain important theses are proved to be in err, these histories are dearly important in terms of how a society saw itself in the world, what elements of it they deemed of virtue, and how that society created its culture in the confines of its geography. Ultimately the Brits did not descend directly from ancient Troy, but when you read the histories of the Venerable Bede from the 8th century, you learn why he wrote this--he saw his people as a noble race with a noble destiny. It's not unlike when colonial Americans saw their new country as a modern Rome, as the savior of democracy and civilization, and this attitude is reflected in, for example, the architecture of Washington. America sees itself as God's nation, and this is reflected in so many subtle ways, from the Pledge of Allegiance to all the references of a higher power in the major founding documents. Of course, America is not Rome, it is not a theocracy, and Britain is not a New Troy. But the histories are still extremely vital in terms of determining how a people lived and saw themselves in the context of the larger world, their role within.

Determining fact does not in any way undermine these crucial aspects of history. As such, the factually horrid history of Richard III written by Thomas More undermines much in terms of recording what actually happened at the end of the 15th century in the British royal courts, and subsequent investigations have shown the real truth. But More's history is still vital in understanding the British psyche, how it viewed the monarchy and its destiny within the rest of Europe.

Never throw away an ancient or medieval text under the premise that it may be factually erred. They probably are. They are still incredibly valuable in studying history.

 

[Law of Loud]

I apologize if I was a little too extreme and overstated my own point. I am not trying to express that we were perfect in any sense, but the claim that everybody was better than Europeans is a common thought nowadays. It is surprisingly common.

 

[Russebby]

I apologize if I was a little too extreme and overstated my own point. I am not trying to express that we were perfect in any sense, but the claim that everybody was better than Europeans is a common thought nowadays. It is surprisingly common.

What you need to remember is, prior to about 1980, all history was written through the eurocentric view, basically meaning that all non-European peoples were savages that needed the white man to dominate and christianize and domesticate and industrialize them. Through this, all native cultures were seen as subhuman, pagan, and immoral. All non-Caucasian peoples were being legitimized as inferior, for one reason or another, to Europeans.

History was exclusively being written through the European perspective for decades. As such, it was one-dimensional, and through only one point of view, gross inequalities could be glossed over. Slavery in America was glossed over as a necessary evil, which does nothing to explain why people who called themselves Christians condoned the practice, nor does it explain the misery of literally millions of human beings in this very country. Native Americans were seen as godless heathens who lived to scalp white people and get drunk, and hence a stereotype was perpetuated--this line of thinking dismisses important notions about Native Americans, like the fact that American democracy was as much based on the Iroquois as the French Enlightenment, that the various Indian tribes were as ferocious in the defense of their peoples as Americans were of theirs, and that the various broken treaties were as destructive to Indian culture as broken treaties in international affairs were destructive as the origin of war. And if you believed eurocentric history, no one--no Spanish or Mexican or Apache--touched the Southwest until gold as discovered in California in 1848.

I have a problem with Anglo-Americans here in Arizona talking about how this is "our land", when the reality is there were Spanish here since 1540, Apache since 1450, and Hohokam since the time of Christ. I took Arizona history in 1985 in high school, and I aced the class, but I was disheartened that only about two days were spent on Indians, two days on the pre-Anglo Spanish period, and the rest of the eighteen weeks was spent on Anglo history, which is only about 130 years. As far as I was concerned, I was robbed of any real knowledge because it talked only about the white people.

I realize political correctness might go over the top at times, and as such Europeans may feel they are being seen as barbarians and thugs in world history. You have to realize that for most of recorded history, Europeans saw everyone else in the world as pagan and barbarian and subhuman. Is turnabout fair play? In my opinion, whatever insult whites might feel today because of revisionist history is nothing compared to what everyone else felt when picking up their textbooks and seeing either nothing at all having to do with their ancestors, or whatever crimes commited against them glossed over as necessary evils. In a few years it will all balance out.

In the meantime, it behooves you to learn WHY someone would call Europeans barbaric instead of merely complaining about it. Before you condemn the insult, you might learn a thing or two if you analyze it a little bit before you gripe about it.

 

[hemis]

According to minimalist history, the world began at about the year 1600?

According to my research the world began a few generations before Alexander the Great of Macedonia embarked on his voyages to Arabia.

History is after all very very biased in context. Many people still believe (christians mainly) that Nero burnt down sections of Rome for political and personal gain, when in fact evidence points to the arsonist as the men Nero originaly identified. The legacy of Colombus is over exagerated as he only found the isles of the Carribean when it was Cabbot who is not given the credit he deserves as he was the one who ventured to the mainland. In fact we know that Colombus knew ahead of time of the land to the west through the help of the Vikings and Portugese whale hunters who all used the same currents Colombus used and had at time mistakenly found several of these isles.

Then again maybe there is a perfectly logical explanation as to why history is biased and in favour of the 'white' man: He was one of very few who kept such records and made such expeditions to seek out the rest of the world. Of course most of our written history was recorded around the same time the Torah was being assembled, coinsidence?

 

[jlujan69]

Revisionisim exists to belittle White Anglo-Saxon culture, and to give achievements and merits to cultures that did not deserve them. People that practiced cannibalisim and human sacrafice should not be put up on a pedestal as pure native culture. They were little better then their forfathers who learned to walk erect.

Rooster, you indicated "Christian" as your religion. By chance, are you Christian Identity?

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

This is what makes a lot of the Clint Eastwood westerns so good.

 

[Freodin]

Every approach to history has to been seen in context with the era and culture where it is written. The science of "History" itself is history.

So the critizised "revisionist history" is a sign of this era of rampant political correctness.
It isn´t absolute truth, and it is not the last word on this topic. It can give valuable insights into the questions it deals with, and it can give valuable insights into the worldview of its proponents - but it is not "The Truth".

Don´t worry: it will be revised someday. History always does.