Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Historical revisionism
Topic Started: Mar 6 2014, 10:08 PM (164 Views)
Quasimodo




Deborah Lipstadt wrote "Denying the Holocaust, the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory" (and was sued by a Holocaust denier in Britain, where defamation cases are easier to win than in the US).

However, some of her thoughts seem also to be relevant to another time and place...to university departments... and even to legal cases whose historical outcome has been determined...

A few excerpts from her book:



Quote:
 


Reasoned dialogue has a limited ability to withstand an assault by the mythic power of falsehood...

An absolutist commitment to the liberal idea of dialogue may cause its proponents to fail to recognize that there is a significant difference between reasoned dialogue and anti-intellectual pseudoscientific arguments. They have failed to make the critical distinction between a conclusion, however outrageous it may be, that has been reached through reasonable inquiry and the use of standards of evidence, on the one hand, and ideological extremism that rejects anything that contradicts its preset conclusions, on the other...

Reasoned dialogue, particularly as it applies to the understanding of history, is rooted in the notion that there exists a historical reality that--though it may be subjected by the historian to a multiplicity of interpretations--is ultimately FOUND and not MADE. The historian does not CREATE, the historian UNCOVERS.

THE VALIDITY OF A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION IS DETERMINED BY HOW WELL IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE FACTS.

Though the historian's role is to act as a neutral observer trying to follow the facts, there is an increasing recognition that the historian brings to the enterprise his or her own values and biases. Consequently there is no such thing as a value-free history.

However, even the historian with a particular bias is dramatically different from the proponents of these pseudoreasoned ideologies. The latter freely shape or create information to buttress their convictions and reject as implausible any evidence that counters them. They use the language of scientific inquiry, but theirs is a purely ideological enterprise...


Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 6 2014, 10:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


The challenge presented by the deniers is whether disinformation should be granted the same status and intellectual privileges as real history...

The deniers understand how to gain acceptance for outrageous and absolutely false ideas. The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has described how this process operates in the academic arena.

Professor X publishes a theory despite the fact that reams of documented information contradict his conclusions. In the "highest moral tones" he expresses his disregard for all evidence that sheds doubt on his findings. He engages in ad hominem attacks on those who have authored the critical works in this field and on the people silly enough to believe them.

The scholars who have come under attack by this professor are provoked and respond. Before long, he has become "the controversial Prof. X" and his theory is discussed seriously by nonprofessionals, that is, journalists. He soon becomes a familiar figure on television and radio, where he "explains" his ideas to interviewers who cannot challenge him or demonstrate the fallaciousness of his arguments...


Although we do not take their conclusions seriously, contradictory as it may sound, we must make their method the subject of study. We must do so not because of the inherent value of their ideas but because of the fragility of reason and society's susceptibility to such farfetched notions...it is essential to expose the illusion of reasoned inquiry that conceals their extremist views...

It is also crucial to understand that this is not an arcane controversy. The past, and more important, our perception of it have a powerful impact on the way we respond to contemporary problems.

And if history matters, its practitioners matter even more. The historian's role has been compared to that of the canary in the coal mine whose death warned the miners that dangerous fumes were in the air--"any poisonous nonsense and the canary expires". There is much poisonous nonsense in the atmosphere these days. The deniers hope to achieve their goals by winning recognition as a legitimate scholarly cadre and by planting seeds of doubt in the younger generation. Only by recognizing the threat denial poses to both the past and the future will we ultimately thwart their efforts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Of course it's quite possible that someone will try a bit of "historical revisionism" on the lax case.
It would be unusual if this were not so, since sooner or later every historical event seems to be subjected
to such "re-interpretations".

In the event a re-interpretation has the backing of major proponents (especially where these have an agenda),
such revisionism may even, for a time, become accepted by the mainstream.

Of course, a revisionist will always adopt the pose of "a neutral observer trying to follow the facts"; though by selecting some "facts" and disregarding others, he may in effect create his own narrative.

But since "THE VALIDITY OF A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION IS DETERMINED BY HOW WELL IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE FACTS", any such agenda-driven revision must ultimately fail, because facts don't change.

They remain, to be examined by all; and any revisionist interpretation may be subjected to close scrutiny,
and all the facts applied, to see how well it meets the test of a true historical account.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply