Historical Revisionism: What It Is and What It Is Not

An activist historian in the United Kingdom, who rose to prominence as a supporter of Black Lives Matter, recently expounded to the Times on what he sees as the proper role of historians: “I think [the job of historians] is to try to stand there at this arsenal of dangerous ideas and to make it more difficult for people to raid that arsenal to use it for their political projects. It is to complicate the picture; it is to show that these simple assertions are much more nuanced; it is to muddy the waters and try to de-weaponise the past.”

This style of black activist retelling of history can be described as antiracist revisionism, as it conforms to the methods and goals of the ideology of antiracism. Antiracism is defined as “a paradigm located within Critical Theory utilized to explain and counteract the persistence and impact of racism.” Within this paradigm it is not enough for one not to be racist; it is necessary to be antiracist, meaning to interpret concepts, ideas and facts through the lens of critical race theories.

Antiracist revisionism retells the history of Western civilization as a culture riven with racism and exploitation of black people, drawing upon critical race theory perspectives to explain that all history is one giant race war. To antiracist revisionists, history is all doom and gloom for people who are not white, and any discussion of history that fails to highlight oppression and exploitation of black people is to be dismissed as “racist.” This is what they mean by reinterpreting history through the lens of race.

One of the most baffling traits of antiracist revisionists is that they seek to dismantle all aspects of Western culture while insisting that anyone who disagrees with their racialized interpretations of the world is thereby “starting a culture war.” According to antiracists, the only way to avoid starting a culture war is to accept their message that Western culture is pure evil. This explains why antiracists always seem to be very surprised when people object to their destruction of historic monuments – they see destroying history as good antiracism, and objecting to their destructionism is therefore needlessly “starting a culture war.”

In what James Lindsay has called “the iron law of woke projection,” they do not realize that the only people starting a culture war are those seeking to destroy Western culture, namely themselves. As Tom DiLorenzo reminds us, “A definition of ‘projection’ is when one baselessly accuses others of doing something unsavory, immoral, or illegal that he is actually doing.”

The methods of antiracist revisionists are therefore entirely opposed to the tradition of historical revisionism.

The true aim of revisionism

Historical revisionism is a good thing if it means highlighting important aspects of history that are unknown, overlooked, or forgotten. Ralph Raico described revisionism as essential to understanding the true causes of war, as most warmongers do not reveal the true reason for their wars of aggression. Without the efforts of revisionists, we might never unmask the true motivations behind disastrous wars. For example, we are told by most historians that Abraham Lincoln waged war on the South “to free the slaves.” Those who seek to justify aggressive wars are aware that if they do not advance a “just cause” for their war they may never get popular support for it.

For example, the war in Iraq was launched, we were told, because Sadam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction. Raico observes that for these reasons, in the history of war truth is often masked by invented “just cause” explanations:

Pretexts and evasions have proliferated. In democratic societies, these are endorsed—often invented—by compliant writers and intellectuals. The unmasking of such excuses for war and war-making is called historical revisionism, or simply revisionism. Revisionism and classical liberalism (what is today called libertarianism) have always been closely linked.

Raico highlights the strong libertarian anti-war tradition, adding:

Murray Rothbard was the heir to this whole legacy, totally familiar with it and bringing it up to date. Aside from his many other, truly amazing contributions, Murray and his colleague Leonard Liggio introduced historical revisionism to the burgeoning American libertarian movement. This is a work now carried on with great gusto by Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute, and its accomplished scholars.

Confederacy and reconstruction

In The Consolidation of State Power via Reconstruction Tom DiLorenzo extends the revisionist tradition described by Raico to understanding the war for Southern independence and the “reconstruction” that followed in its aftermath. DiLorenzo explains how the history of reconstruction written by William Archibald Dunning was later “revised,” primarily in the 1960s, by Marxist scholars. The Marxist revisionists did not dispute the historical facts of the “Dunning School.” Instead, “Relying heavily on Marxian class conflict theory, they merely painted what they considered a more ‘enlightened’ picture of the era.”

The new “enlightened” Marxist analysis of the Civil War era claims that Confederates were in some way inherently “racist” as distinct from other men of their time. They see the war as one between “racist” oppressors in the South and “antiracist” abolitionists in the North. To sustain this claim, not only must they depict the war waged by the North as a war whose purpose was “to free the slaves,” but they must also depict the South as driven by one goal only: racism.

This leaves the antiracist revisionists with a residual difficulty: accounting for the thousands of black men who supported the Confederate cause in various capacities. This has proved to be a challenge. Their theories of oppression are unable to account for black people fighting on the Confederate side.

For example, Samuel W. Mitcham in his biography of General Nathan Bedford Forrest recounts that General Forrest was accompanied to war by 43 of his slaves, who remained at his side for the duration of the war and of whom he later said “Those boys stuck with me. Better Confederates never lived.” Antiracist revisionists say this should all be attributed to coercion. Their theory is that slaves joined the war simply because they did whatever they were told, and free blacks joined the war because they were afraid of racist Confederates and therefore also did whatever they were told. As slavery is a condition inherently based on coercion, it follows in their theory that the entire history of America from 1776 to 1865 is a history of coercion; and after 1865 it remains a history of total coercion due to what they call “legacies of oppression.”

For that antiracist theory of coercion to be true, all wartime accounts in books, newspapers, journals, and military records, detailing the determination of black people who volunteered to fight in support of the Confederate cause, would have to dismissed as false – a rather bewildering approach to the study of history.

Antiracist ideology with its themes of racism and coercion is not genuine historical revisionism, as historical revisionism does not consist in simply announcing that all history is false merely because it fails to conform to one’s preferred ideology. Revisionism relies on producing evidence that contradicts the prevailing historical accounts. For example, those who think Lincoln waged war “to free the slaves” might have a compelling reason to revise their opinion of him when they read, in Lincoln’s own words cited by DiLorenzo, where Lincoln said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and the black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.

 


Originally Posted at https://mises.org/


  • Related Posts

    Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade

    from ZeroHedge: With the changing of the guard, it’s time for long-promised accountability over the unprecedented COVID scam. Not only has Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promised to hold feet to the fire as the head of the Senate’s government oversight panel, we may actually have a shot at a special counsel investigation and more with Trump’s incoming Attorney General […]

    Another Nationalist Upset: Right-Wing NATO Critic Wins First Round Of Romanian Election

    Another Nationalist Upset: Right-Wing NATO Critic Wins First Round Of Romanian Election

    In the continuation of well-established trend observed across Western democracies, yet another populist, nationalist, right-wing candidate has posted an election result that far exceeded what polls indicated he was capable of. The latest upset took place in Romania on Sunday, and it has positioned a NATO critic and Ukraine war skeptic to potentially take over the country’s presidency.  

    With 99% of ballots tallied, populist Calin Georgescu led all 13 candidates with 23% of votes, edging the Save Romania Union Party’s Elena Lasconi and Prime Minister and Social Democratic Party member Marcel Ciolacu — who had 19.17% and 19.16%, respectively. Another right-winger — the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians’ George Simion — placed fourth with 13.87%. That sets the NATO- and EU-member country up for a second-round vote on Dec. 8 against either Lasconi or Ciolacu; Simion has already thrown his support behind Georgescu.  

    Calin Georgescu  Reuters via BBC 

    “The 35-years-long economic uncertainty imposed on the Romanian people became uncertainty for the political parties today,” said Georgescu, who took the poll-outperformance phenomenon to a whole new level: An October poll showed him with only 0.4% support, and a November survey had him racking up just 5.4%

    The outcome will be highly unwelcome to the Western establishment: Georgescu pledged to restore Romanian sovereignty and put an end to what he characterizes as subservience to NATO and the EU. He has taken a hard line against the presence of NATO’s missile defense system that’s based in Deveselu, southern Romania, calling it a “shame of diplomacy” that is more confrontational than peace-promoting. 

    He has also pushed for Romania to pursue a non-interventionist policy in the Ukraine war, and said US arms-makers were manipulating the conflict. Since Russia’s invasion, Romania has facilitated Ukrainian grain exports and furnished military assistance including the donation of a Patriot missile battery.  

    As in the US election, a large portion of the Romanian electorate may have been fed up with resources dedicated to foreign refugees and foreign wars rather than the country’s own citizens. According to the X account GeoInsider, “In one widely shared clip, Georgescu highlight[ed]…striking disparities: Romania pays a monthly allowance of 3,700 lei to the children of Ukrainian refugees, compared to just 248 lei for Romanian children.” 

    “For the unjust, for the humiliated, for those who feel they do not matter and actually matter the most … the vote is a prayer for the nation,” the 62-year-old Georgescu said via Facebook after casting his vote. Georgescu has a doctorate in soil science and previously held various roles in the country’s environmental ministry, and represented Romania as a member of the UN’s Environmental Program. In addition to his broad theme of restoring Romanian sovereignty, he also ran on countering price inflation, addressing Romania’s worst-in-EU poverty rate, supporting farmers and decreasing the country’s reliance on imports

    Romania shares a 400-mile border with Ukraine and hosts a NATO missile defense system in the country’s south (via Britannica)

    Georgescu’s result was all the more surprising given he didn’t run as a member of any political party, and used social media platform TikTok as the principal mechanism of his campaign. Racking up 1.6 million likes, his account showed him going to church, running, practicing judo, and being interviewed by podcasters. TikTok’s centrality to his highly unorthodox campaign prompted some howling by people who didn’t like the outcome: 

    …and, as is the case whenever a right-wing nationalist wins these days, people are blaming RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA! 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 11/25/2024 – 06:55

    You Missed

    Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade

    Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade

    Another Nationalist Upset: Right-Wing NATO Critic Wins First Round Of Romanian Election

    Another Nationalist Upset: Right-Wing NATO Critic Wins First Round Of Romanian Election

    Russia says downed 8 ballistic missiles fired by Ukraine

    Russia says downed 8 ballistic missiles fired by Ukraine

    Cancer experiences

    Cancer experiences

    Atlantic 7-Day Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook

    • By NHC
    • November 25, 2024
    • 4 views
    Atlantic 7-Day Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook

    NHC Eastern North Pacific Outlook

    • By NHC
    • November 25, 2024
    • 4 views
    NHC Eastern North Pacific Outlook