NF Mythbusting vs Revisionist (split off from another thread)

[civilwarincolor]

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.

When you are using a period source, then I agree it is showing more than was previously commonly known. To me that is not revising, just expanding. the "four letter" revisionist history is when you put a modern view on period events. Lincoln was racist by today's standards because he stated that the black race was inferior. Yet without him slavery would have continued for many more years.

I think if Lincoln lived today his views would be more modern and contemporary. I also feel that if any of us lived during the CW that we would be VERY out of place or would revise our beliefs (at least publicly) in order to survive.

 

[civilwarincolor]

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

Memory is very odd. I have a very clear memory of that scene in the movie. I had not seen it since it came out (I was living in Germany at the time and we visited many of the places in the movie). When I started to write my response I started describing the scene that I remembered. When I was nearly done, I thought "I bet I can find it on YouTube" and in about 2 minute had the clip. When I viewed that scene for the first time in 45 years I had most of it right, but had lost many details. I thought they were walking down a street. I thought the two wives looked at each other, realizing what was happening.

I suspect that future generations will just play back their body camera video and we will think it was silly that people used to "forget" details.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

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.

But versions of that myth had been floating around for a long time. It's easy to have heard the myth in passing from someone repeating it without reading or hearing about the one big debunker.

 

[Lee]

When you are using a period source, then I agree it is showing more than was previously commonly known. To me that is not revising, just expanding. the "four letter" revisionist history is when you put a modern view on period events. Lincoln was racist by today's standards because he stated that the black race was inferior. Yet without him slavery would have continued for many more years.

I think if Lincoln lived today his views would be more modern and contemporary. I also feel that if any of us lived during the CW that we would be VERY out of place or would revise our beliefs (at least publicly) in order to survive.

Interesting thoughts that beg the "what if" in me. A common misconception I encounter is many folks will say Lincoln was assassinated after the ACW which isn't exactly correct and I believe they scanned the history reading that Lee had surrendered the ANV hence the war was over. My biggest rub is many who read and some who study history just do it wrong as they judge all they read through modern day eyes/times and can't bring themselves to appreciate individuals thoughts, words, and actions were lived in "their" time not ours.

I say this after reading some label Lincoln a racist ignoring the time he lived in and that his feelings and positions were impacted and evolved by events mainly the war which aged him horribly during his time in office not to mention losing a child too.
Awareness of abolitionists is common but emancipationists not so much. I regret Lincoln didn't live to see the end of the war his wisdom and input for what followed IMO would have been of immense value. Getting back to the "what if" I have always imagined the two men who never got a chance to meet and together who could have likely done the most good for the country would have been Lee and Lincoln.

IMO any lesser former Confederate would not have the leadership and respect Lee held throughout the South post war and had Lincoln lived and extended the invitation I feel Lee would have met with him and the result of that meeting could/would have expedited the healing of the country. OK that's my "what if" moment of the day. Just a roaming thought as useless or valuable as "what if" frogs had pockets which would enable them to carry knives and snakes would be less likely to prey upon them.

BTW I completely agree with your description and definition of the four letter word "revisionist."<g>

 

[TerryB]

You run into this in genealogy, too. I've busted many a myth in my own genealogy, but too often you get the the reply, "well, I stand by Aunt Myrtle's book."

 

[TerryB]

The biggest myth I've busted is the one where my ancestor Marcellus Pointer "executed" prisoners at Nickajack Gap. I have a very detailed, well-researched essay on my blog of over 5,000 words. I set the record straight, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.civilwarmysteriesampmore.com/search/label/Wheeler

 

[cash]

Revision is what historians do. If they didn't, then all we would need is one big book with "the history," and we wouldn't need any more historians. Everyone would read the one big book, and that's all they would need to know.

"Revisionist" is actually a phony term. If we're not revising what we know based on new information or new ways of looking at the evidence, then we're not thinking.

 

[cash]

When you are using a period source, then I agree it is showing more than was previously commonly known. To me that is not revising, just expanding. the "four letter" revisionist history is when you put a modern view on period events.

That's your personal definition, and it's fine for your own purposes, but it's not what the rest of the world uses.

It seems to me you're applying the word to what historians call "presentism."

 

[Bee]

It seems that the conversation has gotten far more complicated than intended by the original posit of "Myth-busting". I would call them "proven inaccuracies" rather than myths. My favourite example, of course, is the old "Jeb Stuart was joyriding" and "Lee had no Cavalry" at Gettysburg. We know this to be untrue, as 12years of research have sussed this all out in Plenty of Blame to Go Around. I believe that this is the sort of thing that Eric is talking about.

 

[civilwarincolor]

That's your personal definition, and it's fine for your own purposes, but it's not what the rest of the world uses.

It seems to me you're applying the word to what historians call "presentism."

Had not heard the term "presentism" before. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary. I still stand by my definition as I have heard and seen it used that way many times.

pres·ent·ism
ˈprezenˌtizəm/
noun

1. uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

 

[civilwarincolor]

It seems that the conversation has gotten far more complicated than intended by the original posit of "Myth-busting". I would call them "proven inaccuracies" rather than myths. My favourite example, of course, is the old "Jeb Stuart was joyriding" and "Lee had no Cavalry" at Gettysburg. We know this to be untrue, as 12years of research have sussed this all out in Plenty of Blame to Go Around. I believe that this is the sort of thing that Eric is talking about.

This is a spin-off thread comparing mythbusting to revisionist history. The original thread is carrying discussion of myths.

 

[Bee]

This is a spin-off thread comparing mythbusting to revisionist history. The original thread is carrying discussion of myths.

Okay. I guess that my understanding would be that when a proven historical inaccuracy (myth) has been debunked by primary source, than the narrative has to be revised to match the facts

 

[John Winn]

Revision is what historians do. If they didn't, then all we would need is one big book with "the history," and we wouldn't need any more historians. Everyone would read the one big book, and that's all they would need to know.

"Revisionist" is actually a phony term. If we're not revising what we know based on new information or new ways of looking at the evidence, then we're not thinking.

We agree except that I don't think revisionist is a "phony term." I think it is a useful term to connote a reinterpretation of a long-term, "standard" interpretation. The example that immediately comes to mind is referring to Eric Foner's school pertaining to reconstruction as revisionist to differentiate that view from the Dunning school which prevailed for decades. I don't see it as anything negative; just a useful term when used in that way. I'd also say I don't think it synonymous with presentism which is a very different thing.

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

For me personally, I don't think a "historical inaccuracy" is the same as a myth, though......An inaccuracy is based on a lack of information, being corrected when new information has been discovered and presenting the new information based on fact......A myth, for example, is a Greek God......
Maybe I am confusing myself with this understanding!

 

[TerryB]

Had not heard the term "presentism" before. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary. I still stand by my definition as I have heard and seen it used that way many times.

pres·ent·ism
ˈprezenˌtizəm/
noun

1. uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

James M. McPherson says presentism is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. I love that quote. Hope I spelled his name right.