Revisionist History

[TMA_1]

I have noticed that this form of history places today's morals and standards on history. We look back and pick out the problems and ethical dilemmas that came from moments like the american revolution, the treatment of japanese decended peoples in america during world war 2, reasons for the civil war, and many others. What is so funny though, is they forget to point out problems of our "heros" of the 20th century. Like the fact that Martin Luther King committed adultery multiple times and was an anti semite. Or how John Kennedy was involved in the mafia sindcates before and during his presedency.

Does revisionist history carry double standards with it? Should we judge history, recent and long ago, with our ideals now? I dont believe so. What do you guys think?

[Acriku]

We all need heroes to look up to I guess, even if they are not as squeaky clean as they are told to be.

[TMA_1]

very true man. see where you are coming from.

[kblackthorne]

Hm...

I think there's a difference between "Revisionist History" (which implies knowingly & deliberately changing facts) and the sorts of things you are describing with King & Kennedy, which involve, rather, "compartmentalizing" them. (Public, heroic stuff in this slot. Private, dishonorable stuff in this slot.)

The flaws of these men are known. But they also accomplished impressive things, and in those things serve as role-models.

Then again, I am capable of admiring, respecting, & looking up to someone who isn't perfect. Good thing, too, since none of us are perfect.

Hmmm...

The more I think about it, the more I think your implied complaints of "revisionist history" tearing down heros is the back-end of the same process. Reminding people of the flaws of these role-models that have been -- in many ways -- turned into Saints in the popular imagination. When historical figures begin acquiring folklore ("Who cut down the cherry tree?"), certainly the record should be set straight.

As for judging the past by our current standards... which ones? Yours? Mine? Jewish? Christian? Those of some native on a Pacific Island who beleives head-hunting is good for his tribe?

The only standards that can realistically be used to pass judgement on an action are those of the individual performing that action.

And while we can never know the mind or conscience of another individual, we CAN do everything we can to understand the cultural context they came out of... which can shed a great deal of light on their actions. For example, if a person comes from a culture where there is a single dominant religion, and that religion teaches, "Thou shalt not kill", we can be fairly safe in assuming that it was an ideal for them.

Then again, a study of the time/place they were from may show us many times when killing (since this is my example) were permitted or even required. (The stoning of the adulterous wife in ancient Judea, the execution of the traitor, etc.)

But, again, we must use the standards of the time & place. Otherwise I might be condemned for wearing my hair uncovered as a married woman. And you might be condemned for failing to offer a proper sacrifice to the health of some tribal god-king or god-emporer. (Such acts were considered the duty of all loyal -- refusal was an act of disloyalty against the state as well as a religious offense. See: Rome)

Yes, we can look back on History, and say, "These were the delimas they faced", "This act was terrible", or "This act would be considered wrong today for these reasons". But to try to apply a morality that would be foreign to those it is being applied to is... pointless.

[emprworm]

TMA, you and I are moral absolutists. We look upon people of today or the past and can make empirical judments on their actions.

A moral relatavist cannot logically judge history using today's values. To do so would be a contradiction.

[TMA_1]

that is one hard thing with history too. One of the first things tought is not to judge other cultures by your own standards. You can critique a religion or culture, but you dont get emotional. That is when judging happens. I love history but wouldnt make a good historian in that sense. I am a moral absolutist as you said empr. I cant back down on my morals. Nothing could stop that.

[emprworm]

well i dont think its our place to judge a man's heart. only actions.

slavery, for example, in any time period...any culture is wrong- even if that culture saw slavery as "right and good" I can say that because I am an absolutist.

A moral relativist could not say that. If they could, I'd sure like to hear them logically explain it.

[Anathema]

A moral relatavist cannot logically judge history using today's values. To do so would be a contradiction.

They can. They can say "by todays standard they were wrong". That doesn't mean that peoplem will agree with me 500 years later. In the middle ages, burning witches was the right thing to do, and the people who did it were christians.

I'd get into this deeper, but that would get us further off topic. Thank you, Emprworm ::)

I think that people should be taught both the good and bad sides of history, otherwise would be propaganda because you deliberately want the reader to get a one sided view of the situation. I think we can all agree that Soviet propaganda wasn't a nice thing. But also, after the Cuba crisis everybody thought that it was a glorious victory for the USA, and ten years later it turned out that the Soviets had forced the USA to withdrawl their nukes in Turkey in trade for the withdrawl of the nukes on Cuba. I doubt people back then liked the idea of having been deceived by their government for all those years. lol.

I remember a part of a history book in elementary school. It mentioned how the Germans under Hitler bombed Rotterdam. It also mentioned a lot of other bad things the Germans did. Another day I read something about how the allies had bombed German cities like Hamburg, wich changed my entire view about WWII, because prior to that I believed that the allies were saints.

We all need heroes to look up to I guess, even if they are not as squeaky clean as they are told to be.

Do you mean this as a justification, or do you mean that people just want to have heroes?

[Caid Ivik]

TMA, I don't know what are you trying to. Don't judge how someone lived, but what he gave to world, or better, to you. If someone was big sinner, but for mankind brought best he could, you aren't that one, who should seek for his sins. Other things are if one teaches one and does other, like Rousseau teached how we should raise children, but he haven't raised any. But as said Jesus over one lighter girl:

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - John 8,7