I like the vibe they’re going for, but the responding made a whoopsie defending ‘revisionist history’ instead of actual history that’s not whitewashed. lol
EDIT: Looked it up and I guess the term covers both good and bad versions… One that challenges old orthodox that may be remembering things purposefully wrong … and one where actual history is revised and corrupted to reflect new orthodoxy.
I was just reading “revisionist history” as the negative meaning, where the understanding of history is changed to be less accurate for what ever motivation. I looked it up and apparently good reexamination of history and bad rewriting of history are both called historical revisionism. Although apparently those in the field call the bad form “historical negationism”.
I edited my original comment to reflect the finding. lol
Ah, yeah. ‘Revisionism’ is sometimes used pejoratively, but in the field it’s a largely neutral (and relative) term - most understandings of history today were ‘revisionist’ views back in the 70s, for example.
Likewise, understandings of history through a CRT lens are technically revisionist - in that they seek to revise our understanding of the recent past by contextualizing the long-standing issue of racism starting in the early modern period.
I read a brief history of the Civil War recently when I was trapped somewhere without my computer (HORROR OF HORRORS 😭) and uh, it shows that it was written in the 80s even without the least hint of ‘overt’ racism.
Give me (rigorous, reasoned) revisionism any day - just with the understanding that it itself may be subject to revisionism in the future XD
I see revisionist history mostly in terms of interpreting it to push forward a political agenda. and much of CRT certainly does this. As does pretty much anyone with an political agenda to justify and push.
All historical narratives are political. The idea of the ‘apolitical’ historical narrative died in the 80s and 90s, and good riddance, since ‘apolitical’ was only code for ‘conservative narrative’.
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yes, it’s true that the notion of objectivity/neutrality is no longer popular. But it still exists. Some scholars still aspire to it.
The idea that there is no truth entirely serves those who only see history and scientific inquiry as means to an end and having no worth in and of themselves.
It sounds like you think any neutral history that might not share your liberal political views is ‘conservative’ and ‘bad’. You are basically saying history, for you, only serves it’s purpose if it furthers your own agenda. Not everyone has an agenda in tehir interest of history. I do not. I actually quite enjoy history when it is inconvenient to my own political beliefs.
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yes, it’s true that the notion of objectivity/neutrality is no longer popular. But it still exists. Some scholars still aspire to it.
The idea of ‘apolitical’ historical narratives has run into the core problem that constructing narratives is inherently political, from Herodotus on down. That is the purpose of History as a discipline - to construct narratives, not simply to record facts.
The idea that narratives can be apolitical is itself political, as it constructs a bloodless interpretation as ‘neutrality’ instead of ‘a failure to address the implications of the status quo’. What is an ‘apolitical’ narrative of the US Civil War? A timeline of major events with names and dates? That’s not history, that’s a chronicle.
The idea that there is no truth entirely serves those who only see history and scientific inquiry as means to an end and having no worth in and of themselves.
“Pilate saith, ‘What is truth?’”
The idea that truth is apolitical ignores that subjective values of observers ensure that there is always dispute, even when all the facts are known and agreed upon.
It sounds like you think any neutral history that might not share your liberal political views is ‘conservative’ and ‘bad’. You are basically saying history, for you, only serves it’s purpose if it furthers your own agenda.
Fucking what.
Not everyone has an agenda in tehir interest of history. I do not. I actually quite enjoy history when it is inconvenient to my own political beliefs.
I fundamentally disagree with you. The notion that all history is nothing more than a narrative that is inherently political is absurdly reductive and that’s one of the tenants of CRT by which I can’t take it seriously.
I mean, look you don’t believe in Enlighment values, cool. Other people still do. Not everyone thinks the world is purely subjective. Subjectivity is something we can shed through education and practice.
From where you stand what I’m saying seems totally absurd, I have no doubt. Because I am well aware they don’t educate with enlightenment values anymore and even when I was doing my undergrad/grad work it was ‘old school’ to think that way and the ‘new school’ was the pure subjectivity assumption.
I like the vibe they’re going for, but the responding made a whoopsie defending ‘revisionist history’ instead of actual history that’s not whitewashed. lol
EDIT: Looked it up and I guess the term covers both good and bad versions… One that challenges old orthodox that may be remembering things purposefully wrong … and one where actual history is revised and corrupted to reflect new orthodoxy.
Terms are annoying sometimes…
I’m not sure I understand what you mean?
I was just reading “revisionist history” as the negative meaning, where the understanding of history is changed to be less accurate for what ever motivation. I looked it up and apparently good reexamination of history and bad rewriting of history are both called historical revisionism. Although apparently those in the field call the bad form “historical negationism”.
I edited my original comment to reflect the finding. lol
Ah, yeah. ‘Revisionism’ is sometimes used pejoratively, but in the field it’s a largely neutral (and relative) term - most understandings of history today were ‘revisionist’ views back in the 70s, for example.
Likewise, understandings of history through a CRT lens are technically revisionist - in that they seek to revise our understanding of the recent past by contextualizing the long-standing issue of racism starting in the early modern period.
I read a brief history of the Civil War recently when I was trapped somewhere without my computer (HORROR OF HORRORS 😭) and uh, it shows that it was written in the 80s even without the least hint of ‘overt’ racism.
Give me (rigorous, reasoned) revisionism any day - just with the understanding that it itself may be subject to revisionism in the future XD
I see revisionist history mostly in terms of interpreting it to push forward a political agenda. and much of CRT certainly does this. As does pretty much anyone with an political agenda to justify and push.
All historical narratives are political. The idea of the ‘apolitical’ historical narrative died in the 80s and 90s, and good riddance, since ‘apolitical’ was only code for ‘conservative narrative’.
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Yes, it’s true that the notion of objectivity/neutrality is no longer popular. But it still exists. Some scholars still aspire to it.
The idea that there is no truth entirely serves those who only see history and scientific inquiry as means to an end and having no worth in and of themselves.
It sounds like you think any neutral history that might not share your liberal political views is ‘conservative’ and ‘bad’. You are basically saying history, for you, only serves it’s purpose if it furthers your own agenda. Not everyone has an agenda in tehir interest of history. I do not. I actually quite enjoy history when it is inconvenient to my own political beliefs.
The idea of ‘apolitical’ historical narratives has run into the core problem that constructing narratives is inherently political, from Herodotus on down. That is the purpose of History as a discipline - to construct narratives, not simply to record facts.
The idea that narratives can be apolitical is itself political, as it constructs a bloodless interpretation as ‘neutrality’ instead of ‘a failure to address the implications of the status quo’. What is an ‘apolitical’ narrative of the US Civil War? A timeline of major events with names and dates? That’s not history, that’s a chronicle.
“Pilate saith, ‘What is truth?’”
The idea that truth is apolitical ignores that subjective values of observers ensure that there is always dispute, even when all the facts are known and agreed upon.
Fucking what.
I don’t think you understand what’s being said.
I fundamentally disagree with you. The notion that all history is nothing more than a narrative that is inherently political is absurdly reductive and that’s one of the tenants of CRT by which I can’t take it seriously.
I mean, look you don’t believe in Enlighment values, cool. Other people still do. Not everyone thinks the world is purely subjective. Subjectivity is something we can shed through education and practice.
From where you stand what I’m saying seems totally absurd, I have no doubt. Because I am well aware they don’t educate with enlightenment values anymore and even when I was doing my undergrad/grad work it was ‘old school’ to think that way and the ‘new school’ was the pure subjectivity assumption.