Do the revisionists belittle history?

[ShadowAspect]

Just for fun... Canabalism is still practiced in Nigeria and other countries along that part of the coast, you can buy human body parts in many markets if you know who to ask.
And I know somebody who witnesed canabalism by Canadian native indians, although this was way back in 1944.'

But I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

 

[oldrooster]

Just for fun... Canabalism is still practiced in Nigeria and other countries along that part of the coast, you can buy human body parts in many markets if you know who to ask.
And I know somebody who witnesed canabalism by Canadian native indians, although this was way back in 1944.'

But I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

What it has to do with is the denegration of European civilization, do not push the line on me that the native civilizations, if you wish to call them that, were at any way desirable. Europeans brought civilization to a good chunk of the world, and it is because of them that we have advanced so quickly...

 

[Brimshack]

I fail to see how this indiscriminate and baseless condemnation of a whole hemisphere full of people is in anyway distinguishable from racism. Prejudice is prejudice.

 

[oldrooster]

I fail to see how this indiscriminate and baseless condemnation of a whole hemisphere full of people is in anyway distinguishable from racism. Prejudice is prejudice.

Nothing to do with prejudice or racisim, it is simple truth. No matter how much you change history, the truth remains unchanged. They even try to remake US history as well.

 

[Brimshack]

Claiming that your sweeping negative genealizations are truth or that they are history does not make them so, and if either history of truth were values you cared about, you could at least back your sweeping assertions with something relating to facts. As it stands, your comments amount to nothing more than the sweeing dismissal of millions of people and everything that have done, based on nothing more than there status as non-Europeans. That is indeed prejudice, and no word games on your part will make it otherwise.

 

[Inner City Blues]

I've been looking through this thread and I'll say revision in history is essential. I think to try and say x culture is better than y culture lacks any sense in understanding history. I think people of European descent have a big problem with seeing history in this scope because they no longer are top dog. I think a lot comes from the fact that many European discoveries were built off of other civilizations which makes sense since these other civilizations progressed before Europe.

I think oldrooster's comments shows a large degree of ignorance and the still generalizing of a group. The fact that you generally cite African tribes goes back to the point made about just calling all Islamic people "Muslims." At the same time you differentiate every European group. The African continent is expansive and your comments don't offer any details or ideas.

You seem angry that an African culture could be seen as great, but you want to cite the three or four (out of hundreds) tribes that were cannibals. All these indigenous people were labeled cannibals so history needs to go back and separate fact from fiction.

I think a lot of this anger with Americans stems from the civil rights movement where white people were the oppressor. But even revisionist history has softened that image. Yes, America was brutal towards slaves and Native Americans and blacks after the Civil War. But as more facts have come out, the fact that not everyone in the South were slave owners and that it was mostly the rich that owned slaves is seen. But you don't want to hear about the brutality, you rather hear about the lower number of slave owners to fit a comfortable worldview.

 

[oldrooster]

I've been looking through this thread and I'll say revision in history is essential. I think to try and say x culture is better than y culture lacks any sense in understanding history. I think people of European descent have a big problem with seeing history in this scope because they no longer are top dog. I think a lot comes from the fact that many European discoveries were built off of other civilizations which makes sense since these other civilizations progressed before Europe.

I think oldrooster's comments shows a large degree of ignorance and the still generalizing of a group. The fact that you generally cite African tribes goes back to the point made about just calling all Islamic people "Muslims." At the same time you differentiate every European group. The African continent is expansive and your comments don't offer any details or ideas.

You seem angry that an African culture could be seen as great, but you want to cite the three or four (out of hundreds) tribes that were cannibals. All these indigenous people were labeled cannibals so history needs to go back and separate fact from fiction.

I think a lot of this anger with Americans stems from the civil rights movement where white people were the oppressor. But even revisionist history has softened that image. Yes, America was brutal towards slaves and Native Americans and blacks after the Civil War. But as more facts have come out, the fact that not everyone in the South were slave owners and that it was mostly the rich that owned slaves is seen. But you don't want to hear about the brutality, you rather hear about the lower number of slave owners to fit a comfortable worldview.

Wether or not Europeans are top dog or not, makes little difference. Their contribution to the world is past debate. I also will not join the bashing of the past to make this group or that group feel good. I could care less if they feel good or not. Do not build a dirt heap into a castle.

 

[Inner City Blues]

Wether or not Europeans are top dog or not, makes little difference. Their contribution to the world is past debate. I also will not join the bashing of the past to make this group or that group feel good. I could care less if they feel good or not. Do not build a dirt heap into a castle.

But how is telling the truth about a group bashing them? If a group of people slaughtered an entire village, yet they gave to the poor, do we not reveal the slaughter? You have given no indication of how Europeans have been bashed and how other groups have been elevated. You just give vague statements without any support.

The contribution of Europeans is not debatable? I didn't know there was a debate. I do know that they did some great things and they did some terrible things. But Europeans is still too general. Why not instead of making vague statements that allude to racism, you speak in more specific terms?

This is something I find permissive among people like you, you make a statement and then never back it up.

 

[ShadowAspect]

Revision is about untangling history from propaganda.

Even in these times with our supposedly free press, it's very difficult to get a real idea of what is going on. There are books already on the shelves about 9/11 and the Operation Iraqi freedom which are going to be collectable in a few years from now, because their ideas and theories have already been proved wrong in such a spectacular way... Anyone who reads the press from a broad range of sources can see that there are two very different opinions over this war and both have put their version of events over in print and in pictures, one saying the war is right and a sucess, the other that it was wrong and a failiure. Both sides can't be right and in all probability one side will be proved right conclusivly. But in the past, things have often not panned out this way.

History goes to the victor no matter if they are right or wrong. And even if the victor is right, they are seldom 100% right.

After the first world war, some nations aologized to each other for the lies and black propaganda commited against their enemies. Fro example, the British admitted that German soldiers did not rape nuns, bayonet babies and execute civilians. (all common propaganda in wars before and since).

But since these retractions were the exception rather than the rule, revisionists are needed. Luckily, the stories of Germans eating babies passess into history as propaganda and not ad fact... for it is far more interesting as the former. (propaganda is a hobby of mine).

 

[Axion]

A few points:

1. Propaganda is a large element in every war. An attempt is always made to demonise the enemy. Recent examples: Iraqi soldiers supposedly holding women and children in front of them for protection. Serb soldiers in Kosovo supposedly killing and raping tens of thousands of civilians. Both presented as "facts" during the conflicts, none substantiated afterwards. But many still believe the stories.

2. I lived in Nigeria for several years. I found no evidence of any cannibalism, and certainly not of people selling body parts in markets!!! Where did that one come from? Learn to treat certain stories with caution. But we are prepared to believe unsubstantiated stories about certain areas and peoples where we would discount them about Canada for example. "You can buy human body parts in markets in Canada, if you know who to ask".

3. What is verified is that the Aztecs and some other pre-columbian Indian cultures practiced cannibalism on the bodies of sacrificial victims. So oldrooster does have SOME point, in stating that these cultures are often presented to us by revisionists as wonderful, noble cultures, "ruined" by the Spanish - which is just as much a travesty. But he seems far too eager to condemn everything in non-european cultures as worthless. And to lump "europeans" together as one cultural group, responsible for everything good, which is a big distortion.

 

[ShadowAspect]

2. I lived in Nigeria for several years. I found no evidence of any cannibalism, and certainly not of people selling body parts in markets!!! Where did that one come from?

My father-in-law owned a shipping company in Nigeria and lived there for 6 years until the coup (when he was arrested and tortured for three days, senteneced to death for espinage, then thankfully deported).

You will remember that a torso of a young boy was found in the thames a few years ago, it was thought that he was dismembered and his body parts used for magical practices. This can involve eating parts such as the liver and genitals.
When I said the body parts are availible in the markets... i didn't mean like hanging in a butchers shop, but instead under the counter from the suppliers of magical ingredients. There is a trade in young boys for this very purpose and is something that the african police and Europol are very aware of.

 

[LLBlair]

It is little use trying to discuss history, or anything else for that matter, with ax-grinders. The search for the truth matters little to them, their main concern is sharpening their ax. One can only imagine why they desire to have a sharpened ax. Wouldn't a better tool in a discussion be an intellect sharpened by years of study of many histories written by many different cultures and ages. Instead they seem to be interested in only the latest diatribe by some revisionist college professor or the latest book on the New York Time best seller list.

 

[Russebby]

You will remember that a torso of a young boy was found in the thames a few years ago, it was thought that he was dismembered and his body parts used for magical practices. This can involve eating parts such as the liver and genitals.
When I said the body parts are availible in the markets... i didn't mean like hanging in a butchers shop, but instead under the counter from the suppliers of magical ingredients. There is a trade in young boys for this very purpose and is something that the african police and Europol are very aware of.

I have two words for you, JEFFREY DAHMER. USA! USA! USA!

 

[ShadowAspect]

It is little use trying to discuss history, or anything else for that matter, with ax-grinders. The search for the truth matters little to them, their main concern is sharpening their ax. One can only imagine why they desire to have a sharpened ax. Wouldn't a better tool in a discussion be an intellect sharpened by years of study of many histories written by many different cultures and ages. Instead they seem to be interested in only the latest diatribe by some revisionist college professor or the latest book on the New York Time best seller list.

From what I have seen, it is usually pretty rare for the revisionist historians to be the ones with the axe to grind. Unfortunatly, when you challenge history you will often challenge peoples beliefs. People don't like change.

So okay, the book that links J.F.K. with the Knights Templar is probably just an attempt to make money. But most of the revisionism which is going on is by people who deserve the name historian. Much of their work goes unchallanged because it is uncontroversial. Nobody really cares if Richard the third was a hunchback or not. And even if St. George wasn't a Turkish bacon salesman (as we now believe) there are few who are going to aregue that he really did slay a dragon. It's only when you attempt to revise subjects on which people build their identity that people scream 'liberal', or claim axe grinding.

 

[ShadowAspect]

Does anybody want to actually cite some examples of revisionism which they think are wrong?

 

[Russebby]

Does anybody want to actually cite some examples of revisionism which they think are wrong?

I realize I was on here fiercely defending revisionist history. Now allow me to give you a specific example of revisionism gone awry.

In 1992, in opposition to the many celebrations in the Americas concerning the Columbus expedition of 1492, there were groups who protested the celebrations. Their claim was that the Columbus expedition paved the way for the rampant genocidal campaigns the European powers raged against the Native Americans, from Patagonia to Alaska. One of the specific examples of this genocidal warfare the protestors brought up was the 1521 Spanish conquest of Tenochtitlan and the victory over the Aztecs; they talked about the murderous antics of the Cortes party, that they manipulated the religious natives and duped them into believing they were ancestral gods, that they took Aztec kindness for weakness.

Now, I personally do believe that the European domination of the Americas included the doctrine of exterminating the Native Americans. The United States certainly has a lot to answer for, but virtually every European-esque government in the Americas also is guilty of genocidal antics.

Concerning the Aztec example the protestors used, however, we find that they either were not educated concerning Aztec culture, or they chose to ignore it. Being revisionist by its very definition means analyzing the coltures previously ignored in history; hence, by ignoring the actions of the Aztecs against its neighboring citizens is a negligence of history.

The Aztecs made no qualms about the use of human sacrifice in their religious rituals. In and of itself there is something horrific in this, but if it were to be contained within its own social borders, that would be one thing. The Aztecs used their religious fervor to pilfer neighboring peoples, to take human sacrifices from neighboring villages, to rob and rape much as we credit the likes of the Mongols or Vikings for doing the same.

When the Cortes party landed in southern Mexico in 1519, the remnants of the Mayans still existed, and they were all too eager to assist the Spaniards if it meant ending the Aztec raids. With little objection they guided Cortes through the jungle to Tenochtitlan.

In modern society we condemn societies that wreak havoc against its neighbors. We condemned Saddam Hussein for invading Iraq and for waging genocidal campaigns against his Kurdish population. When the former Yugoslavia broke up in the early 1990's, Serbia established itself as an aggressor nation, seeking first to envelop Croatia and Bosnia, then later Kosovo, in both instances seeking to eliminate the Muslim population and in the process making the phrase ETHNIC CLEANSING a household term. We especially condemned the Nazis for ravaging the Jewish communities of Europe and torturing them for their own amusements.

If the Aztecs were committing their shenanigans in 1992, would the protestors so vehemently be protecting their religious freedoms, especially when they involve human sacrifice and pilfering their neighbors? Not that we should commend Cortes for ridding that part of the world of a bloodthirsty nation, but it becomes plain to see that consistency dictates we see the Aztecs and the Nazis in a similar light. If we are to condemn the Nazis, the Serbians, the Ba'athist Party in Iraq, and in previous generations the Mongols and Vikings for their relentless pillagings, we must also see the Aztecs in the same manner.

In the end Cortes did bring the mighty city of Tenochtitlan to its knees, and he did pave the way for the Europeanization of the Americas. And unfortunately that meant genocide. What is wrong in the revisionist version of the actions of 1521 is that they seek to defend Native Americans--a nnoble gesture--while forgetting the vital components of their philosophy. They defend a culture without knowing it. They lump the Aztec plight into the same pile that includes the Inca, Sioux, Navajo, Iroquois, and several hundred other peoples--by lumping them all together, they betray their tenet of seeing all individual peoples in their own light and judge them on their own merits.

Like I said, I am a staunch defender of revisionist history. But here I offer an example of revisionism gone awry. I hope that leads credence to my beliefs--by being able to criticize those on my side, I hope to show I am more honest than loyal.

 

[Brimshack]

While, I agree that it is a grave mistake to lump all Native Americans together, and that revisionists are roughly as likely to do this as others, I would say that the worst things about Aztec society do nothing to redeem Cortez and his soldiers. This is one of many cases where there are more than enough terribles to go around. And while I have seen people speak of the Aztecs in naieve terms, this simply doesn't mean that anyone is wrong to condemn the actions of Cortez or any of the other Conquistadores.

My candidate for revisionism gone awry would be some of Ward Churchill's writings (see above). I recall once using one of his articles to track down primary sources dealing with the forced sterilization of Native American women up to the 70s. This is something that gets repeated in college and lefty circles pretty often, and I know plenty of people who claim to know someone... Anyway, I thought I'd try to track down the relevant material, and I knew of an article by Churchill on the subject. So, I tracked down his endnotes, took them to the library, found and copied his sources on the subject. They were all about population control, and there may have been some trace of racism to the urgency with which the authors spoke of the need for birth control in certain populations, but there was absolutely NOTHING in there about the forced sterilizations that Churchill spoke of. ...No good.

Another candidate would be some of Vine Deloria's writings, specifically God is Red and Red Earth, White Lies. In the former he comes close to suggesting that whites are the product of alien experiments, and in the later he purports to debunk the Bearing Straights hypothesis by taking a lot of scholarship out of context.

Candidate 3: Paula Gunn Allen, she argues that Native American societies are naturally matriarchal, even assuming this to be true of socieities which have historically been patrilineal. She also argues that her status as a native gives her an intuitive grasp of some things for which she apparently doesn't need evidence. I also remember the painfully ironic statement to the effect that we need more money for sovereignty (in context, the implication being that the Feds needed to fund tribal sovereignty better). I find much of her writing painfully self-indulgent.

Point of Clarification: I am not suggesting that any of these writers should be dismissed wholesale as several in this thread would clearly like us to do., Each has done good work on a number of subjects, and Deloria was brilliant in his heyday. I am simply suggesting that some of their work is in each case sufficicently poor to provide a good example of poor revisionist scholarship.

 

[ShadowAspect]

Lets get things straight here... There is a big difference between revising history, looking for evidence, comparing facts, re-evaluating motives and possible causes, and relating them to later effect...

...and protesting, lobbying, and generally whining about the results of the former. Or spinning it into a juicy story which will appeal to a disaffected minority group and top the best sellers list.

There isn't much doubt that the white man did some nasty things to the brown man. There is also little doubt that in the past we haven't had a balanced view or both sides of the story. In Britain we have a tradition of being self critical and re-analyzing even recent history. Our wars are a very good example of this, no sooner was WWII over, than we were asking about the performance of Harris, Monty and Churchill.
Anybody would have thought we had lost the Falklands war after the scrutiny we put it through. Its a healthy thing to do.
They do say that the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history. It's hardly suprising if much of it is corrupted.

 

[Thursday]

This is why I go to primary sources whenever possible. Everyone has an opinion...

 

[Russebby]

Anybody would have thought we had lost the Falklands war after the scrutiny we put it through. Its a healthy thing to do.
They do say that the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history. It's hardly suprising if much of it is corrupted.

You mean you WON the Falkland Islands War? I thought that war was treated like a retarded cousin your Aunt Theresa just "sent away", and no one ever talks about.

As for people not learning from history, we got a president that is trying to repeat the basic mistakes of every American president over the last hundred years--nothing like going down memory lane with the Bush administration.

I hope Blair's operation goes smoothly. He is a good man who does not deserve to be impeached for trying to do the right thing in following the saber-rattling of a gimp of a president using pinheaded intelligence to start Armageddon. I like Blair, and I like watching the House of Commons on C-SPAN and how they go after your PM. Our Senate ought to be so honest and direct.