Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

American History

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

16. Generally because they are attached to some historical dogma or other.

Reply to ellisonz (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 08:49 AM

Feb 2012

So generally the basis is ideological (political) or territorial (academic).

I don't think those terms are useful, because they are already a biased nomenclature in which some theories are accepted and others are not, some theories are authoritative and others are not; whereas I submit that a new theory that is better supported ought be the accepted one. But of course, that is still a matter of opinion.

Let's face it, if you are an angry historian, you are not showing good historical temperament.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Robert Higgs: Why Do So Many People Automatically and Angrily Condemn Historical Revisionism? [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

Human nature. They built part of their identity on the historical stories. saras Dec 2011 #1

That's a very good point about the emotive force of the term "revisionism" Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #3

Usually the answer is a rice bowl of one sort or another. dimbear Dec 2011 #2

Revision is a fundamental part of doing History, but saras makes a very good point Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #4

Agreed. ellisonz Dec 2011 #5

Because to some people Historical Revisionism is a code phrase for MicaelS Dec 2011 #6

Among history professionals, "revisionism" is code for Holocaust deniars Bucky Dec 2011 #7

I didn't know that... I have NEVER understood MicaelS Dec 2011 #8

Oh I have on my shelf the first book of this... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #9

"The book is now at its 48th edition" MicaelS Dec 2011 #10

Yup. what I have, why it is a historical artifact, nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #11

For most people "history" is just a kind of mythology. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #12

I kinda think the economists overplay their hand... ellisonz Dec 2011 #13

Different kinds of "history" zipplewrath Dec 2011 #14

That's a fair analysis. n/t ellisonz Feb 2012 #15

Generally because they are attached to some historical dogma or other. bemildred Feb 2012 #16