Revisionist History and the Modern age

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
Revisionist history is a powerful tool which allows the descendants of losers in conflicts to score a win psychologically, culturally or in an actual event such as a battle even - simply by taking control of the historical discourse in the current age. To watch movies about the Roman Empire you would think of it as always in decline being picked apart under invariably effeminate deranged rulers. The British have been pushing a version of their slaving history to emphasise their abolitionism and use of navy to attack the slaving ships of their enemies in the 19thC. The Germans having lost several huge wars have been battered the heaviest, as have the Muslims whose history is currently being revised into 1400 years of savagery.

In Ireland the history of Roman Catholic Ireland has been under a sustained assault - particularly post independence. It is depicted as an oppressive (as though other countries were more free at that time) religious soaked (as though modern liberal views were all the norm in the 70s) economic failure (despite the fact that from independence to joining the EU Dublin surpassed Belfast in size and economic importance and there were no famines) and war-guilty country (despite our neutrality and long period of peace). When the child abuse scandal was revealed people used the word genocide, media and political blame was apportioned only to religious authorities and not secular authorities and the papers told us the RCC were worse than the British. It was a perfect opportunity by revisionists to recast our independence as oppression.

Going further back the Plantation has been redesigned as a mass immigration and aligned with modern day migrations. The Great Hunger was just a mistake instead of a cynical attempt at ridding Ireland of it's economically less desirable rural Gaelic poor. The Cromwellian ravaging of Ireland is revised as 'revenge' instead of just a case of a conqueror invading, dispossessing the population for gain and imperial expansion. The Normans are depicted as having built lovely homes (castles) as did the Protestant Ascendancy. All in all the revisionists have set about assaulting the Irish native Catholic viewpoint of history and replacing it with that of the invaders and this happened during our 'independence', which is curious indeed.

With any history many things can be contested but with revisionist (or politicised) history a 'verdict' is offered, a concensus against which no argument is allowed - as though this was an exact science - because such versions of history are political in nature and are designed to produce a modern day effect. You would think with information more readily available it would be harder to do that but do a search for historical events and your search is first censored by the search engine (Google - which recently was placed under pressure to avert their results to block out the so called holocaust denial results) then wikipedia which while presented as the ultimate truth is just the combined effort of ordinary people - many of them politicised hoping to describe events that suits their prejudices or omit the inconvenient ones. Meanwhile fewer people are reading books or visiting the library, retrieving sources liberated from this level of control means that revisionism has a lot of open ground still in front of it.
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,806
Twitter
No
Ireland was invaded twice and is still trying to fight off the miasmic effects of the earlier one.

There is no such thing as a 'native Irish catholic'. Catholicism, like Protestantism. Judaism and Islam are in no way native to Ireland. They are all bizarre offshoots of a fairly frantic psychology in the middle east from thousands of years ago. They are all foreign cults and influences. They are about as native as Tony Cascarino whose only saving grace was that he was better in the air than any of the aforementioned.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,063
Revisionist history is a powerful tool which allows the descendants of losers in conflicts to score a win psychologically, culturally or in an actual event such as a battle even - simply by taking control of the historical discourse in the current age. To watch movies about the Roman Empire you would think of it as always in decline being picked apart under invariably effeminate deranged rulers. The British have been pushing a version of their slaving history to emphasise their abolitionism and use of navy to attack the slaving ships of their enemies in the 19thC. The Germans having lost several huge wars have been battered the heaviest, as have the Muslims whose history is currently being revised into 1400 years of savagery.

In Ireland the history of Roman Catholic Ireland has been under a sustained assault - particularly post independence. It is depicted as an oppressive (as though other countries were more free at that time) religious soaked (as though modern liberal views were all the norm in the 70s) economic failure (despite the fact that from independence to joining the EU Dublin surpassed Belfast in size and economic importance and there were no famines) and war-guilty country (despite our neutrality and long period of peace). When the child abuse scandal was revealed people used the word genocide, media and political blame was apportioned only to religious authorities and not secular authorities and the papers told us the RCC were worse than the British. It was a perfect opportunity by revisionists to recast our independence as oppression.

Going further back the Plantation has been redesigned as a mass immigration and aligned with modern day migrations. The Great Hunger was just a mistake instead of a cynical attempt at ridding Ireland of it's economically less desirable rural Gaelic poor. The Cromwellian ravaging of Ireland is revised as 'revenge' instead of just a case of a conqueror invading, dispossessing the population for gain and imperial expansion. The Normans are depicted as having built lovely homes (castles) as did the Protestant Ascendancy. All in all the revisionists have set about assaulting the Irish native Catholic viewpoint of history and replacing it with that of the invaders and this happened during our 'independence', which is curious indeed.

With any history many things can be contested but with revisionist (or politicised) history a 'verdict' is offered, a concensus against which no argument is allowed - as though this was an exact science - because such versions of history are political in nature and are designed to produce a modern day effect. You would think with information more readily available it would be harder to do that but do a search for historical events and your search is first censored by the search engine (Google - which recently was placed under pressure to avert their results to block out the so called holocaust denial results) then wikipedia which while presented as the ultimate truth is just the combined effort of ordinary people - many of them politicised hoping to describe events that suits their prejudices or omit the inconvenient ones. Meanwhile fewer people are reading books or visiting the library, retrieving sources liberated from this level of control means that revisionism has a lot of open ground still in front of it.
I think history shows that ruler's have always seen religion as necessary for the ruled and a useful tool ,especially one that preaches delayed retribution and reward until everyone's dead, and give unto Caesar,,,.
Its hardly surprising that historian's bend their work to suit their preconceptions and its not as if we can believe that historian's of the past were any more honest in their endeavours.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,806
Twitter
No
Come to think on it in both invasions there was an element as Benroe mentions of rulers seeking to employ external influences to consolidate their own power and influence domestically.

A bit like Stuxnet- a virus introduced to the world's linked computer systems for a specific purpose but which quickly escaped the control of its masters and from there on it was unintended consequences all the way.
 

PeaceGoalie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,459
A predictably useless contributgion on an interesting topic.
I think history shows that ruler's have always seen religion as necessary for the ruled and a useful tool ,especially one that preaches delayed retribution and reward until everyone's dead, and give unto Caesar,,,.
Its hardly surprising that historian's bend their work to suit their preconceptions and its not as if we can believe that historian's of the past were any more honest in their endeavours.
Good points and spot on. Julius Caesar, genocidal maniac, wrote his own histories. I still rile at "Beyond the Pale", as if the gangsters in Dublin were anything else but gangsters
 
O

Oscurito

Not all historical revisionism has ulterior motives. Sometimes, it can simply be a new perspective such as a new document having be brought to light that can bring about another view of a particular historical narrative.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
Ireland was invaded twice and is still trying to fight off the miasmic effects of the earlier one.

There is no such thing as a 'native Irish catholic'. Catholicism, like Protestantism. Judaism and Islam are in no way native to Ireland. They are all bizarre offshoots of a fairly frantic psychology in the middle east from thousands of years ago. They are all foreign cults and influences. They are about as native as Tony Cascarino whose only saving grace was that he was better in the air than any of the aforementioned.
Yes fair point. From an absolute point of view no doubt this is correct - and once upon a time Christianity did it in for a whole encyclopaedia of religions (and i was just thinking the other day how much of how we view the Romans is due to Christianity and Judaism - the enemies of that empire ie for centuries in the popular consciousness the Romans were the 'Nazis' in much of Christian thinking, they were depicted as an epitome of wickedness) which had probably also absorbed or replaced earlier ones. However - those in place and the faith in place could be said to have a primary right to exist there than an invading one which imposed itself by violence and domination, so native is relative - which is what i meant.

Our ancestors held into their religion because they really believed it, for them what happened after death was more important than what happened in life, for them the only way they could rejoin their deceased relatives was to follow exactly as their ancestors did in terms of religion.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
Here is another example of historical revisionism to suit a current day political objective (to erase the Palestinians' historical experience from history).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/israel-remove-nakba-from-textbooks

Israel's education ministry has ordered the removal of the word nakba – Arabic for the "catastrophe" of the 1948 war – from a school textbook for young Arab children, it has been announced.

The decision – which will alter books aimed at eight- and nine-year-old Arab pupils – will be seen as a blunt assertion by Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud-led government of Israel's historical narrative over the Palestinian one.

The term nakba has a similar resonance for Palestinians as the Hebrew word shoah – normally used to describe the Nazi Holocaust – does for Israelis and Jews. Its inclusion in a book for the children of Arabs, who make up about a fifth of the Israeli population, drives at the heart of a polarised debate over what Israelis call their "war of independence": the 1948 conflict which secured the Jewish state after the British left Palestine, and led to the flight of 700,000 Palestinians, most of whom became refugees.
When seen in comparison to this Ireland's increasingly anti Catholic and anti Gaelic revisionism looks suspiciously like neo colonialism too (makes you wonder just who runs the show here). Revisionism stems from control of the narrative or power in other words.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,580
Revisionist history is a powerful tool which allows the descendants of losers in conflicts to score a win psychologically, culturally or in an actual event such as a battle even - simply by taking control of the historical discourse in the current age. To watch movies about the Roman Empire you would think of it as always in decline being picked apart under invariably effeminate deranged rulers. The British have been pushing a version of their slaving history to emphasise their abolitionism and use of navy to attack the slaving ships of their enemies in the 19thC. The Germans having lost several huge wars have been battered the heaviest, as have the Muslims whose history is currently being revised into 1400 years of savagery.

In Ireland the history of Roman Catholic Ireland has been under a sustained assault - particularly post independence. It is depicted as an oppressive (as though other countries were more free at that time) religious soaked (as though modern liberal views were all the norm in the 70s) economic failure (despite the fact that from independence to joining the EU Dublin surpassed Belfast in size and economic importance and there were no famines) and war-guilty country (despite our neutrality and long period of peace). When the child abuse scandal was revealed people used the word genocide, media and political blame was apportioned only to religious authorities and not secular authorities and the papers told us the RCC were worse than the British. It was a perfect opportunity by revisionists to recast our independence as oppression.

Going further back the Plantation has been redesigned as a mass immigration and aligned with modern day migrations. The Great Hunger was just a mistake instead of a cynical attempt at ridding Ireland of it's economically less desirable rural Gaelic poor. The Cromwellian ravaging of Ireland is revised as 'revenge' instead of just a case of a conqueror invading, dispossessing the population for gain and imperial expansion. The Normans are depicted as having built lovely homes (castles) as did the Protestant Ascendancy. All in all the revisionists have set about assaulting the Irish native Catholic viewpoint of history and replacing it with that of the invaders and this happened during our 'independence', which is curious indeed.

With any history many things can be contested but with revisionist (or politicised) history a 'verdict' is offered, a concensus against which no argument is allowed - as though this was an exact science - because such versions of history are political in nature and are designed to produce a modern day effect. You would think with information more readily available it would be harder to do that but do a search for historical events and your search is first censored by the search engine (Google - which recently was placed under pressure to avert their results to block out the so called holocaust denial results) then wikipedia which while presented as the ultimate truth is just the combined effort of ordinary people - many of them politicised hoping to describe events that suits their prejudices or omit the inconvenient ones. Meanwhile fewer people are reading books or visiting the library, retrieving sources liberated from this level of control means that revisionism has a lot of open ground still in front of it.

Holocaust revisionism seems to be number one target for censorship and 'averting' etc.

Understandable when you consider there are billions at stake.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,300
There are too many right-wing nut jobs on this forum with way too much time on their hands to post thread after thread after thread - probably living off of daddy's silver spoon.

It's getting to tha point that it is not worth the effort
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
There are too many right-wing nut jobs on this forum with way too much time on their hands to post thread after thread after thread - probably living off of daddy's silver spoon.

It's getting to tha point that it is not worth the effort
If you look and see you will see i took up for 1. Slaves 2. Irish starving peasants and 3. dispossessed Palestinians

Hardly 'right wing' is it? But stickies suffer convulsions from cognitive dissonance whenever the wrong sorts of poor people get mentioned. This subject of holocaust revisionism is about application of power to the historical narrative - the poor, the dispossessed almost never get to write their version of it (sometimes they do if another power wants to discredit the power that had oppressed the dispossessed group - eg Ahwaz Arabs, Kurds - right receive prominence when opposed by Saddam or Iran) which is my point. Even narratives of the holocaust that affirm it and sensationalise it - stem from power and wealth. As a 'socialist' you should appreciate this point better i think.
 
Last edited:

Glenshane4

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
9,704
I think history shows that ruler's have always seen religion as necessary for the ruled and a useful tool ,especially one that preaches delayed retribution and reward until everyone's dead, and give unto Caesar,,,.
Its hardly surprising that historian's bend their work to suit their preconceptions and its not as if we can believe that historian's of the past were any more honest in their endeavours.
Why the apostrophes?
 

Dearghoul

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
8,840
Ireland was invaded twice and is still trying to fight off the miasmic effects of the earlier one.

There is no such thing as a 'native Irish catholic'. Catholicism, like Protestantism. Judaism and Islam are in no way native to Ireland. They are all bizarre offshoots of a fairly frantic psychology in the middle east from thousands of years ago. They are all foreign cults and influences. They are about as native as Tony Cascarino whose only saving grace was that he was better in the air than any of the aforementioned.
Though not nearly as good in the air as Niall Quinn.

On the ground you could have put a bucket out on the pitch and the ball would have hit it more often than Cascarinos feet.

Brilliant for several clubs mind you.

Now to revisionism.

It's useful if what you're trying to revise is in need of revision.

If you're agin revisionism in all its many aspected forms, as the OP'er seems to be, you are saying that you are pretty comfortable with history as taught and learned in the post war world, Ireland included.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
What a daft OP. Precisely because it is a truism that "history is written by the winners", revisionism is not only a legitimate practice but an essential one for historians.

Discovering or re-discovering or re-interpreting the historical record is what makes history vital and meaningful. Otherwise it would just be a fable told by the authorities to children.

The problems only start when the ding-bats move in and present a thesis like "The US was founded by a cabal of Satan worshippers" with no verifiable facts at all to support them, or when what is going on is not revisionism but negationism eg David Irving.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
All history worth reading is revisionist.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,580
What a daft OP. Precisely because it is a truism that "history is written by the winners", revisionism is not only a legitimate practice but an essential one for historians.

Discovering or re-discovering or re-interpreting the historical record is what makes history vital and meaningful. Otherwise it would just be a fable told by the authorities to children.

The problems only start when the ding-bats move in and present a thesis like "The US was founded by a cabal of Satan worshippers" with no verifiable facts at all to support them, or when what is going on is not revisionism but negationism eg David Irving.
How many of Irving's books have you read?

You don't hate Irving because he's a bad historian, you hate him because he dissed your holocaust religion.
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The Republic of Ireland has a bad case of Vergangenheitsbewältigung over what happened in some of the Industrial Schools (which were a Whig/Freemasonic/Protestant idea in the first place and not an invention of Gaelic Christendom). For all the horrors of the Russian Civil War (on both sides) and to a lesser extent the early Bolshevik period as a whole you wouldn't find Russians taking seriously ideas that they were somehow uniquely evil the way a lot of people from Southern Irish Catholic backgrounds feel about the past generations of their folk.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top