Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

no historical revisionism.

Historical revisionism isn't a bad thing, you know. I mean, once you realize that we probably don't have history 100% correct right now.

(plus one needs to decide what to focus on when talking about history. The events can be 100% the same but "brave colonists conquering the new world" has a different connotation to "invading europeans conquering native tribes and driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is pretty much the same facts, but entirely different in focus, and 100% historical revisionism)

No I am pretty sure Historical revisionism is a bad thing and is directly antethical to History itself.

Yeah we don't have history 100% correct, but that means we need to try harder to get it as close to 100% as possible.

Assuming you mean Historical Revisionism as in "Revisionist History" as in attempting to mold what and how history is taught in order to put into context the problems of the present without any real concern with historical accuracy.

And not "Revising history" where we look over how we currently know history and amend it according to truths we learn later. Like if we later learned that George Washington was a Vampire, we would have to add that to the history books.

[Descan]

no historical revisionism.

Historical revisionism isn't a bad thing, you know. I mean, once you realize that we probably don't have history 100% correct right now.

(plus one needs to decide what to focus on when talking about history. The events can be 100% the same but "brave colonists conquering the new world" has a different connotation to "invading europeans conquering native tribes and driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is pretty much the same facts, but entirely different in focus, and 100% historical revisionism)

No I am pretty sure Historical revisionism is a bad thing and is directly antethical to History itself.

Yeah we don't have history 100% correct, but that means we need to try harder.

The trying hard is historical revisionism, dude. It doesn't mean "make shit up to fit an ideology."

it's literally "revising history." :U

you're thinking of "historical negationism," as what the bad version of editting and revising the historical record.

[Neonivek]

No I am thinking of Revisionist History.

Not making up history from wholecloth.

"invading europeans conquering native tribes and driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is pretty much the same facts

Well, it would be completely inaccurate and exists purely for modern narratives. Since you know "Invading" a non-unified land.

As well "Driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is also inaccurate, and exists only to be a commentary on modern day reservations.

Which is why Revisionist history is a bad thing. In order to be fair to the Native Americans of the modern day, you have to rewrite history to not only make them even more of a victim, but also make their modern treatment a sure thing. Which is funny because there are a lot of things that DID happen one could draw upon.

[smjjames]

I meant revisionist history, yeah, as in changing how history is taught without regard to how things actually happened.

Though obviously theres always going to be 'the victor writes the history' factor and viewpoints that don't tell the whole story, I mean where they knowingly write it without regard to how it happened.

[Neonivek]

I actually have an essay in one of my books that is an argument in favor of historical revisionism. I should give everyone a copy once, I mean it is despicable... but it gives you an understanding of WHY the USA did it to the extent it did.

[smjjames]

I actually have an essay in one of my books that is an argument in favor of historical revisionism. I should give everyone a copy once, I mean it is despicable... but it gives you an understanding of WHY the USA did it to the extent it did.

Maybe a quick summary of what that is about? I meant 'historical revisionism' (or revisionist history if you want to call it that) in the way that some in the South try to change the cause of the Civil War as being over states rights and not slavery. It's a subtler form of historical revisionism, but still despicable.

[Descan]

okay you guys can keep being wrong :v

[smjjames]

Then what's the proper term for what we're trying to say, if revisionist history/historical revisionism is not the right term?

[PTTG??]

No I am thinking of Revisionist History.

Not making up history from wholecloth.

"invading europeans conquering native tribes and driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is pretty much the same facts

Well, it would be completely inaccurate and exists purely for modern narratives. Since you know "Invading" a non-unified land.

As well "Driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is also inaccurate, and exists only to be a commentary on modern day reservations.

Which is why Revisionist history is a bad thing. In order to be fair to the Native Americans of the modern day, you have to rewrite history to not only make them even more of a victim, but also make their modern treatment a sure thing. Which is funny because there are a lot of things that DID happen one could draw upon.

There was a genocide of indigenous North American societies. To say otherwise is a lie. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[Max™]

No one recalls the words of the vanquished, if the victorious write them out of history, tis as if they had never existed.
*jams out to Infiltrating Enemy Territory*
*dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-nun-nun-dun-nun-nun-nun-nunnun*

[Lord Shonus]

No I am thinking of Revisionist History.

Not making up history from wholecloth.

"invading europeans conquering native tribes and driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is pretty much the same facts

Well, it would be completely inaccurate and exists purely for modern narratives. Since you know "Invading" a non-unified land.

As well "Driving them from good land to sub-par hinterlands" is also inaccurate, and exists only to be a commentary on modern day reservations.

Which is why Revisionist history is a bad thing. In order to be fair to the Native Americans of the modern day, you have to rewrite history to not only make them even more of a victim, but also make their modern treatment a sure thing. Which is funny because there are a lot of things that DID happen one could draw upon.

There was a genocide of indigenous North American societies. To say otherwise is a lie. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

There was no genocide of indigenous North American societies. To say otherwise is a lie. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

The majority - the VAST majority - of Amerindians who died post-Columbus did so without ever seeing a Spaniard or an Englishman, because the native population of the Americas was dry tinder to the diseases that the Europeans unknowingly introduced across the ocean by their very presence. Those that did die as a direct result of European contact were not merely victims - the native tribes simply adopted the European settlers into a centuries-old network of wars and blood feuds, and their wars with the colonists were the result of native aggression as often as European. It wasn't until the 19th century (long after most of the damage was done), that anything you could even begin to call a "genocide" occurred - and there is overwhelming evidence that the worst results of those were unintended. Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were not deliberate massacres, but small panics turned into butchery out of deep-seated paranoia, while the forced relocations were never intended to be death marches - sufficient food was supposed to be supplied, but through a variety of errors this didn't always happen.

The Indian Wars were not a genocide. Calling them one deprives the Amerindians of all agency in their fate, and is obscenely racist.

[redwallzyl]

I hope your not serious.

[Max™]

There was no genocide of indigenous North American societies. To say otherwise is a lie. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Genocide is a mangled word (let's slap latin suffixes on greek roots, yay!) meaning "the act of killing a race/tribe/people" and given how rare it is to find people with more connection to their native american ancestry than a vague fraction like I've got, where I know 3/8ths of my ancestors were native american, but I've never met any of them, and have a hell of a time finding information beyond a vague "comanche, apache, cherokee" since they're all dead, I'd say it is a pretty apt term. You can argue whether it was deliberate or not, but these lands were populated by a range of peoples, those people aren't here anymore, they didn't just disappear, and arguably they would not have if shitbags like Columbus hadn't seen a rich new vista of child wives and free labor to cough and spread diseases into.

The Indian Wars were not a genocide. Calling them one deprives the Amerindians of all agency in their fate, and is obscenely racist.

>uses 'indian' and 'amerindian'
>claims others are being racist
 

[Playergamer]

while we're talking about controversial genocides, remember that diversity is a codeword for white genocide children!

[Starver]

(You're)

He's on a roll.

Basically, I got this tab that I just happened to Google for his twitter account, the other day, and not yet closed, just occasionally refreshed. It's almost like having Twitter myself, and following him, but without the official "following" count, I think. But it makes me realise how addicted I'd ever get to Twitter if I actually joined properly and followed some actual frequent contributors (that I like!), and thus good reason to never do that. I just need to close that tab. And maybe...  *counts...* some of the other 186 browser tabs I have open.  Oh, look, I forgot I was trawling through Darths And Droids. I must have a lot of catching up to do.

Maybe tomorrow. Although it is tomorrow already...