NF Mythbusting vs Revisionist (split off from another thread)

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

A comment in Eric Wittenberg's thread about a prospective Gettysburg myth busting book got a comment that I thought was interesting for further discussion on its own.

I will not buy or read a myth-debunking book. On the surface, they appear revisionist, with an agenda to promote.

I think any good history book is at least somewhat a myth-debunking book. For example, if you write about Little Round Top on July 2 you need to at least briefly address Chamberlain's role which has, most would say, been exaggerated by Killer Angels, etc.

There certainly are several categories of myth-debunking books that seem to further a certain political agenda. One goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers era, although the agenda in those books is usually so transparent reading the jacket summary and author bio usually makes it painfully obvious. Think books about how 'Lincoln was a tyrant and the Confederates were right.'

Another category is guilt-based myth-debunking in which the author seems to want the reader to feel bad, or superior to everyone in the past. It often picks very low hanging fruit. I suspect this also aligns with a certain modern political bias, although it's less obvious at first glance (at least not from the jacket summary). Civil War example would be books slamming Lincoln for being a terrible racist.

I'm not sure where something like "Lies My Teacher Told Me" falls. I tried reading that once, but didn't finish it because I didn't like it. The author did feel like he had some kind of axe to grind.

What are other traps you have seen dedicated myth-debunking books fall into, especially in regards to the Civil War?

On the other hand, what such books get it right? I thought Eric did a good job with his book on Sheridan.

 

[jgoodguy]

Link to thread is
Looking for some input/feedback, please....

 

[brass napoleon]

I think mythbusting is generally a good thing. Like anything though, it can be done well or it can be done poorly. And certainly if the author has an agenda (other than presenting factual history), it's much more likely to be done poorly.

Examples mentioned above: Lincoln the racist and Lincoln the tyrant. Lincoln has become so mythologized that I believe there is a real place for an objective, well-disciplined analysis. Unfortunately most of the examples I've seen have gone way overboard - grossly distorting facts in order to promote an agenda. I think the same can be said for Robert E. Lee.

Another area where myths are rampant is the Underground Railroad. Fifty years ago Larry Gara wrote a book called The Liberty Line, debunking many of those myths. Sadly, he too went overboard with a "pox on all houses" approach that trivialized even documented facts. Decades later he expressed his regret for taking it too far.

It requires balance and objectivity, and if those aren't there, it can easily become a hack job.

 

[SharonS]

There's a big difference between revisionism and the correction of errors that have gotten into the historical record. I know first hand from the research that went into my book on Little Sorrel (apparently it's going to be in stores a couple of weeks early--I'll post something soon). Even the best of the Jackson biographers have repeated "facts" that grew out of mistakes made by early post-war writers. To be fair, most of the biographers probably thought it wasn't worth their time to look beyond the previous biography, since the subject was a horse. But that's how myths are created. There's often an objective reality that has nothing to do with opinion or interpretation.

 

[jgoodguy]

myth
miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
   "ancient Greek myths"
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"

leg·end
ˈlejənd/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.
   "the legend of King Arthur"
   synonyms: myth, saga, epic, tale, story, folk tale, folk story, fairy tale, fable, mythos, folklore, lore,mythology, fantasy, oral history, folk tradition;
   urban myth
   "Arthurian legends"
2. 2.
   an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field.
   "the man was a living legend"
   synonyms: celebrity, star, superstar, icon, phenomenon, luminary, leading light, giant; More

re·vi·sion
rəˈviZHən/
noun

1. the action of revising.
   "the plan needs drastic revision"
   synonyms: emendation, correction, alteration, adaptation, editing, rewriting, redrafting More
   
   
   • a revised edition or form of something.
     plural noun: revisions
     synonyms: version, edition, rewrite
     "a new revision"

 

[1SGDan]

Here is where the problem lies. One man's myths are another man's truths. People do not want to give up those "truths" no matter how poorly they are based in fact. Any attempt to reduce these "truths" are considered as revisionism despite historical legitimacy.

 

[jgoodguy]

Here is where the problem lies. One man's myths are another man's truths. People do not want to give up those "truths" no matter how poorly they are based in fact. Any attempt to reduce these "truths" are considered as revisionism despite historical legitimacy.

Myths are as old as human gathering around campfires to brag on hunts and battles. Myths have value in affirming marriage, families, friendships, tribes, peoples, companies and countries.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Nathaniel Philbrick has made a good living writing high quality books about stuff everyone has heard of: The Pilgrims, Custer's Last Stand, Moby Dick. But most people don't know much about these topics, and Philbrick's recent scholarship often are "mythbusting" since a lot of people aren't invested in a lot of common myths.

 

[jgoodguy]

Nathaniel Philbrick has made a good living writing high quality books about stuff everyone has heard of: The Pilgrims, Custer's Last Stand, Moby Dick. But most people don't know much about these topics, and Philbrick's recent scholarship often are "mythbusting" since a lot of people aren't invested in a lot of common myths.

I like the Mythbusters TV show's narrative, but never heard of many of the myths.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I like the Mythbusters TV show's narrative, but never heard of many of the myths.

I don't think most people have heard most historical myths.

 

[jgoodguy]

I don't think most people have heard most historical myths.

I agree

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

A comment in Eric Wittenberg's thread about a prospective Gettysburg myth busting book got a comment that I thought was interesting for further discussion on its own.



I think any good history book is at least somewhat a myth-debunking book. For example, if you write about Little Round Top on July 2 you need to at least briefly address Chamberlain's role which has, most would say, been exaggerated by Killer Angels, etc.

There certainly are several categories of myth-debunking books that seem to further a certain political agenda all the way back to the Founding Fathers area, although the agenda in those books is usually so transparent reading the jacket summary and author bio usually makes it painfully obvious. Think books about how Lincoln was a tyrant abd the Confederates were right.

Another category is guilt-based myth-debunking in which the author seems to want the reader to feel bad, or least superior to everyone in the past. It often picks very low hanging fruit. I suspect this also aligns with a certain modern political bias, although it's less obvious at first glance. Civil War example would be books slamming Lincoln for being a terrible racist.

I'm not sure where something like "Lies My Teacher Told Me" falls. I tried reading that once and didn't like it. However, the author did feel to me like he had some kind of axe to grind.

What are other traps you have seen dedicated myth-debunking books fall into, especially in regards to the Civil War?

On the other hand, what such books get it right? I thought Eric did a good job with his book on Sheridan.

Thanks for better expanding my thoughts.....I appreciate it!

 

[John Hartwell]

I don't think most people have heard most historical myths.

Or if they have heard them they have no idea that they are myths -- or even controversial.

The thing is, that we need revisionism. Each generation has to review, re-evaluate the scholarship of the past. New sources, new interpretations, new viewpoints are constantly arising -- some are improvements over previous attempts, some are not. But, they should all be brought to bear on every relevant question, whether ultimate conclusions are changed or not. This constant re-examination of the past is what keeps it alive, and keeps it from becoming merely a string of "just so" stories. Future students may well conclude that today's "revisionists" are all wrong, and come up with something completely different. That's OK, too.

 

[Jamieva]

I think most informed CW readers know the difference between a myth and revisionism. For example, Hood's use of pain killers during the Tennessee campaign of the winter of 64. That was a myth and he documented very well when and where it started and by whom. That was de bunked by Stephen Hood in the last couple of years with the discover of JBH's papers.

 

[civilwarincolor]

Or if they have heard them they have no idea that they are myths -- or even controversial.

The thing is, that we need revisionism. Each generation has to review, re-evaluate the scholarship of the past. New sources, new interpretations, new viewpoints are constantly arising -- some are improvements over previous attempts, some are not. But, they should all be brought to bear on every relevant question, whether ultimate conclusions are changed or not. This constant re-examination of the past is what keeps it alive, and keeps it from becoming merely a string of "just so" stories. Future students may well conclude that today's "revisionists" are all wrong, and come up with something completely different. That's OK, too.

I think there is a big difference between revision and correction, at least in the way they are most commonly used. A correction to history would be to say that George Washington did NOT have wooden teeth. A revision would be to use today's standards (both beliefs and in law) to say that the founding fathers were racist anti feminist. By today's standards, yes, but by the standards of the 18th or 19th century, no.

I don't think any of us would want to be judged by the standards of 150-200 years from now.

Correct the factual record when possible, but don't revise opinions.

 

[John Hartwell]

Correct the factual record when possible, but don't revise opinions.

Unless a review and re-evaluation of the facts warrant a changed opinion. Agreed, modern standards and values must not in themselves drive the "revision," but modern methods of inquiry and evaluation/interpretation of sources should surely guide it.

Also, revision should be factual, not judgmental.

 

[Lee]

There are some great points here. I have read about two brave men one from each side who gave great service and could both be described as dripping in valor who had no reason to embellish their deeds yet post war both men did just that more than once. Another example that sticks in my mind is an action in Viet Nam where seven men were involved in the same fight. Well years after the war when those soldiers/combatants described the action they were not all in agreement. I mean they were all in the same fight not a shirker in the bunch but their memories of the events were not the same.

There was no disparaging of the others, no accusations of stolen valor or embellishment exactly but still all the pieces of the puzzle failed to fit properly. Fast forward to not long ago I was in the company of some good friends from my youth and we reminisced about many things back in the day and guess what I failed to remember the events as some of my friends described them. Once again the constant being we were all at the same place doing the things we spoke of at the same time. A few faulty memories were corrected but by no means all of them.

My take away from this is although I can't say the words of anyone describing something that happened three or four decades ago should not be simply discarded out of hand although depending on what they say about what is known then perhaps their memories should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[civilwarincolor]

Another example that sticks in my mind is an action in Viet Nam where seven men were involved in the same fight. Well years after the war when those soldiers/combatants described the action they were not all in agreement. I mean they were all in the same fight not a shirker in the bunch but their memories of the events were not the same.

Reminds me of a movie I saw years ago: "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" I don't remember much of the movie, but there was one scene that stood out. An American soldier, now middle aged (movie came out in 1969) is visiting Europe with his wife. At one point he is describing how the "Battle of the Bulge" went. You see another couple talking in German and you realize that he too is describing the same battle to his wife. Both move toward each other (without noticing the other) and show how they advanced. They walk right past each other not realizing that the memory of the battle is obviously wrong.

You can find the clip here.

 

[Jamieva]

But revision should not be seen as a 4 letter word. I read Cozzens book on the Valley campaign and the reviews on Amazon all call him a "revisionist yankee" because the only other major work was Tanners, which used almost exclusively southern sources when he wrote it. Cozzens used southern and northern sources (imagine that). So it's not revisionist to go back to the same events with more sources, but some people will label it that.

 

[Lee]

Reminds me of a movie I saw years ago: "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" I don't remember much of the movie, but there was one scene that stood out. An American soldier, now middle aged (movie came out in 1969) is visiting Europe with his wife. At one point he is describing how the "Battle of the Bulge" went. You see another couple talking in German and you realize that he too is describing the same battle to his wife. Both move toward each other (without noticing the other) and show how they advanced. They walk right past each other not realizing that the memory of the battle is obviously wrong.

You can find the clip here.

Thanks for sharing that. That is likely the best chuckle I will have today.