Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2017, 05:37 AM   #21

SufiMystic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: On a magic carpet
Posts: 246

One of the worst examples of bad historical revisionism I've seen is the claim that Hannibal of Carthage was black. This was done for entirely ideological reasons and flies in the face of actual history. People from North Africa are not black, nor was Hannibal. The Carthaginians' ancestors came from Lebanon, where people are Middle Eastern. Meanwhile, North Africans from Tunisia are Mediterranean type people.

I think historical revisionism can be interesting if it is done based on an objective look at the sources, rather than an attempt at proving some ideology. Correcting previous biases is certainly a very worthwhile and necessary endeavour. Sometimes the 'accepted' view of history contains misconceptions and biases, and it's good to highlight that when appropriate.
SufiMystic is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2017, 06:01 AM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Thanks for pointing out my error for which I apologise,
Don't apologise, old chap. You are quite right. Irving thought he was playing a blinder by suing Penguin Books and the author Deborah Lipstadt in Britain. This was in the days before the Defamation Act 2013 had even been thought of. Britain back then had an unenviable reputation as the libel capital of the world, largely because our then defamation framework usually had the effect of shifting the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove that comments made were not defamatory. So, in order to defend Irving's claim, the defendants had to basically convince the Court that Irving was a holocaust denier who deliberately manipulated evidence and sources to fit his pre-determined ideological agenda. That was not an easy task, yet they accomplished it.

The judge in the case was Mr Justice Gray, an extremely able, intelligent, well-respected and senior member of our judiciary. In a judgment which ran to well over 300 pages (and, let me assure you, we don't see many of those), Gray basically found that Irving was a racist, an anti-semite and a holocaust denier who liked to buddy up to neo-Nazis and their odious ilk.

Irving tried to use the fear of the old, pro-Claimant UK defamation regime to his advantage (a tactic which worked so often and so well in other cases that we finally overhauled our defamation legislation to make it fit for purpose) but thankfully came up against defendants who weren't going to let him get away with it.

Regards,

Peter
Peter Graham is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 06:19 AM   #23

The Reality's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Ireland, Dublin
Posts: 691

Some beileve that in world war 1 Some Irish soilders got involved because they wanted too, when in actual reality its because they had to because the British still had control of Ireland.
The Reality is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 06:26 AM   #24

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Canada
Posts: 3,584

Quote:
Originally Posted by SufiMystic View Post
One of the worst examples of bad historical revisionism I've seen is the claim that Hannibal of Carthage was black. This was done for entirely ideological reasons and flies in the face of actual history. People from North Africa are not black, nor was Hannibal. The Carthaginians' ancestors came from Lebanon, where people are Middle Eastern. Meanwhile, North Africans from Tunisia are Mediterranean type people.

I think historical revisionism can be interesting if it is done based on an objective look at the sources, rather than an attempt at proving some ideology. Correcting previous biases is certainly a very worthwhile and necessary endeavour. Sometimes the 'accepted' view of history contains misconceptions and biases, and it's good to highlight that when appropriate.
Click the image to open in full size.

According to the History Channel, he is black
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 06:36 AM   #25

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reality View Post
Some beileve that in world war 1 Some Irish soilders got involved because they wanted too, when in actual reality its because they had to because the British still had control of Ireland.
You are aware that the hundreds of thousands of Irish men who joined the British military did so as volunteers and conscription was never introduced into Ireland?
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 06:54 AM   #26

robto's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 4,773

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouLoveMeYouKnowIt View Post
Click the image to open in full size.

According to the History Channel, he is black
American and British media has a long history of putting actors of Anglo-Saxon origin portraying ancient Egyptian people.

I think out of historical education our media entertainment has to start portraying ancient characters accurately. Start putting actors of middle eastern and North African appearance to portray roles of ancient Egyptians and Carthaginians, or olive-skin and Mediterranean looking actors portraying Ancient Greek and Roman characters.
robto is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 07:22 AM   #27

The Reality's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Ireland, Dublin
Posts: 691

[Kevinmeath;2674945]You are aware that the hundreds of thousands of Irish men who joined the British military did so as volunteers and conscription was never introduced into Ireland?[/QUOTE]

"Conscription was never introduced" well That I didn't know but some make it seem like they fought for the British as if they were their own is my point.
The Reality is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Florida
Posts: 2,009
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
they should, always.

In my understanding, there is good and bad revisionism.

Good is questioning the veracity or reliability of a source. Even if it's for a "good" purpose. If a former slave wrote a narrative on his or her life as a slave, then we need to corroborate this with other evidence.

Bad revionism imho is not changing things out of good practice or integrity, but for ideological purposes, or because it supports an agenda. It's like the Romans saying that Carthage had baby sacrifice. If it were true, the Romans themselves even in the Republican period were not angels, and they had no real proof that this did happen. A common example of this is Holocaust denial.
Who is to determine an agenda? All issues in history have multiple viewpoints. The slave has his experiences, while the slave owner has his. The slave owner is educated, can write and writes his version of historical events, yet because the slave is less educated, cannot write and is owned, his version of events is not a credible as his owners because no credible record can be found to prove it?

For example, one of my former employers, the owner and CEO of the company, requested that I take illegal photos of an installation we made in a corporation that has a security policy against it. He wanted me to sneak a camera in to take photos of the work we performed. I refused to do it out of fear of being arrested. Yet he denied ever having made the request when I brought the subject up with the company president. I have no proof of the discussion having taken place, but my career suffered because I could not prove it.
PragmaticStatistic is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 02:16 PM   #29

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,213

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reality View Post
.............

"Conscription was never introduced" well That I didn't know but some make it seem like they fought for the British as if they were their own is my point.
Who do you think they were fighting for? they were all volunteers infact when Nationalists were allowed to visit POW camps in Germany to attempt and recruit troops to support the Easter Rising they got very few recruits (many of dubious quality).
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 02:38 PM   #30

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Depends where the boundary is between revisionism and new knowledge/thoughts.

To bore you all again with my pet subject, medieval Spanish, many of the arabic letters and texts originating from, or ending up in, North Africa, were only translated/discovered/studied in the late 19th/early 20th century by people like Dozy and Sanchez Albornoz. Then along came the next generation of great historians like Huici Miranda and Levi Provencal to point out errors and serious unlikeliness.

The history of these times is riddled with contradicting sources and also serious exaggeration and embellishment, where the author is a servant of the subject EG the Almohad Caliph or the Portuguese or Castilian Crowns. They tend to start with basic facts and then go right off the rails with ridiculous embellishments or exaggerations. In some cases new material is still being unearthed

Garcia Moreno has recently published the best analysis of the 'invasion period' of Spain from 702 to 719, re-examining all sources and sifting out nonsense, legends and errors as far as possible, to get the most probable scenarios.

This sort of thing is still being sorted out - so is it 'revisionism' or is it just further subject study? In this subject there is a dreadful tendency to believe the first writer that came along, and I assume this extends to many subjects.
Excellent post!
Tulius is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
revisionisms



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Merlin -Historical man or Historical myth ? Kronos Speculative History 12 September 5th, 2015 05:46 PM
Historical interests - Historical gaps pikeshot1600 General History 24 January 23rd, 2014 08:32 AM
Historical Sociology and Historical Psychology? Pacific_Victory Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 May 3rd, 2013 04:13 PM
Anything historical fan here Isabella New Users 19 May 1st, 2012 11:41 AM
Historical Name Changes Salah General History 22 August 1st, 2010 07:03 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.