Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Historical negationism and revisionist history.
Topic Started: Sep 21 2016, 05:52 AM (327 Views)
Helvius Pertinax Augustus Sep 21 2016, 05:52 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

 What are your views on historical negationism and revisionist history? Would you consider all history to fall in to those two categories? Do you believe in anything that is considered either revisionist history or historical negationism?

Examples of what is considered historical negationism would be Holocaust denial, denial of Japanese war crimes, denial of the Holodomor, denial of Serbian and Yugoslavian war crimes, and so on. Revisionist history, or historical revisionism would not include denial that an event occurred, but that documented evidence supports that it either happened in a less severe or even more severe manner, or to remove religious or political connotations from an recorded event in history. An example would be the "Great flood" in the Christian/Catholic Bible and any other religious texts it appears in having plenty of evidence that it happened in the region, but that the Judeo-Christian God did not cause the flood and that it was simply an act of nature. To clarify, that is the widely accepted view by historians and scholars now, but if you go back 300 years, much of the Bible was treated as if it were indisputable historical fact. We know now it's got very little historical significance because the events in the book are so slanted towards the religion that any mention of historical events is overshadowed by the presence of God and his servants influence on said events. One could argue that the Bible itself is historical negationism, but that is a debate for a different thread.

To start things off, my views on historical negationism that they are generally bad for humanity as a whole and make the one touting such beliefs seem like an idiot. The biggest issue I see though is that when those beliefs in the absurd become popular and even punishable by law for disputing become so drilled in to our children that they know no other history and simply accept it as unquestionable fact. When questioning the legitimacy of a period of human history gets you imprisoned or killed, I find it hard to believe that those events actually occurred, especially in the absence of any concrete or tangible evidence that the event genuinely occurred in the manner recorded in the history books.

My views on historical revisionism are that if there is substantial evidence to support your claim, then your claim could very well be the truth, or closer to the truth than we currently view as the truth.

I do personally believe in things that are considered by law and world governments to be historical negationism because I believe the ones actually perpetuating the negated history are the ones passing the laws that get you imprisoned for questioning their version of "history". The U.S.S.R was one of the biggest governments to do this during its existence, and even Russia does it today. They aren't the only government to do so nor are governments the only group to do so either.

I won't get in to the specifics on what events I feel occurred and what didn't, but I'm sure some of you can guess as to a few of them.

Of course, both historical negationism and revisionist history/historical revisionism could be considered purely subjective versions of history if viewed in the proper light. Evidence that one person uses to substantiate their claims could be refuted by another or warped to provide a different version of events. An example of this would be the swimming pool at Auschwitz-Birkenau. One side claims it started out as a reservoir of water for firemen to put out fires with before it was converted to a swimming pool for SS officers and capos, and the other side claims it was a swimming pool built for public use by all the occupants of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The latter side is generally accepted to be a part of the historical negationist grouping while the former is generally considered to be a part of the historical revisionist group.

So what are your views on these two subjects?



Edited by Helvius Pertinax Augustus, Sep 21 2016, 05:53 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TrunksinSwimmingTrunks Sep 21 2016, 02:22 PM Post #2
Member Avatar
Formerly known as daman

 Histories are influenced by conscious and subconscious biases and by what evidence is available at the time so I see no problem with things being reanalysed. What is considered "revisionist" in one part of the world today might be mainstream in another part of the world.

I agree that official government histories as well as corporate histories and textbooks are guilty of negationism, as it's often needed to maintain high levels of support for governments or corporations when it comes to both domestic and international affairs (eg-ignoring the role of violence in a lot of major social movements to encourage peaceful protest which can be dealt with by governments much more easily than violence or encouraging citizens of a country to view theie country as the "good guys" to more easily garner support for wars or being stubborn in negotiations). Once that negationism is entrenched into society and in some cases a country or ethnic groups nation identity then the press and the general public will be guilty of negationism also, unless they make extra effort to go back to a blank slate and view things objectively.
kamizake pyro is a girl? olsiw

Make the old spam section viewable plz



Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91