Do revisionist historiographies come closer to "unbiased truth"?

Upvote:3

"Revisionist" is typically an insulting term applied to attempts to change the way things are viewed, regardless of where the evidence may actually be leading. So by definition, no its not any closer to the truth. But what is "revisionist" depends on who you ask, so that's not really a useful scientific distinction.

However, its quite true that the generally-accepted view of large parts of history changes as new information comes in, and certainly we've gotten a lot of new information since the 1960's.

Also, the popular literature on History (and here I'm particularly including grade school textbooks), is heavily weighted towards what society wants to believe happened. That also changes over time, and of course has changed greatly since the 1960's.

One prime example of this: I'm nearly your age, and my public school had really old textbooks, so its probably fair to say that the American History texts both of us read in school were similar. Mine were heavily influenced by the Dunning School view of Reconstruction. This view was one of the prime targets of what has often been called Historical Revisionism. And well targeted too. It was not only flat out wrong, but conveniently wrong in a way that lent support to segregation (and the terrorist tactics that upheld it).

More post

Search Posts

Related post