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

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2017, 03:09 PM   #31

THE TURK's Avatar
Joined: Jun 2016
From: istanbul
Posts: 363

What you might call "revisionism" can actually be quite academic. The key word here is academy, If your theory or thesis is based on primary sources (a new interpretation) or academic secondary sources, you are fine. I find it quite surprising that in academy, many interesting or even unbelievable things are discussed in university journals.

So refereed journals are extremely important for revising an historical "fact". If one's theory is examined by a group of specialists in a serious university and allowed to be published (That's actually what academy is really for, I think), then you could easily guess that that theory is not really BS.

If you don't follow academic knowledge (That knowledge is quite diverse, you can find many interesting theories), then it's super dangerous to read "revisionist history" thing. That can even go to the ultimate BS of "reptilian race illuminati", "the Flat earth theory" etc. etc.
THE TURK is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2017, 03:18 PM   #32

dreuxeng's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 975

^ I think there is supposed to be a point to the bit about 'reptilian race illuminati'.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 11:28 PM   #33

johnincornwall's Avatar
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,830

Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
Excellent post!
Thank you!
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 07:55 AM   #34

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,222

Originally Posted by The Reality View Post
[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?
"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.[/QUOTE]

Many Irishmen considered themselves as British as the Scots, Welsh, New Zealanders, Canadians, South Africans and the two million or so of second or third generation expatriates scattered around the Empire. In 1914 it was quite compatible to be both, after all it was "Home Rule" that was on the table, not Independence.
All the most important Irish Nationalists, John Redmond,William O'Brien, Thomas O’Donnell, and Joseph Devlin supported the British war effort as did the Catholic Church establishment in Ireland until the Pope's condemnation of the war in 1915. Of the estimated 150,000 members of the Irish Volunteers, formed in 1913 to oppose the Ulster Volunteers--24,000 joined British line regiments in 1914 and a further 7,500 joined Irish-based reserve battalions. A further c. 100,000 Irishmen volunteered for British forces during the War at recruiting stations in Ireland itself, including several nationalist MPs and c.70,000 more in mainland Britain.
Enthusiasm of Irishmen to enlist declined in 1916 when horrendous casualties started to mount with the Irish 10th, 16th and 36th divisions being being all but destroyed. (the 36th drew its recruits from both North and South), however such a slump in recruitment was Empire-wide and solved in mainland Britain by conscription. The stay-at-home nationalists made great capital out of the high number of executions of Irish soldiers after court martial (271)--8% of all executions although Irishmen made up just 3% of soldiers serving. While serving soldiers were outraged by the Easter Rebellion and elements of Irish regiments manned by catholic Irishmen put down the rebellion in the countryside, the subsequent events, trials and executions seem to have alienated serving Irishmen as they did the civilians at home.

Last edited by Ancientgeezer; January 5th, 2017 at 07:57 AM.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old January 7th, 2017, 05:35 AM   #35

dreuxeng's Avatar
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 975

Has there been anything that authoritatively revises the history that features in Marrco Polo's Travels.

The peculiar customs of the Chamul people, towards travellers: 'When strangers arrive and desire to have lodgings and accommodation at their houses, it affords them the highest gratification. They give positive orders to their wives, daughters, sisters, and other female relations, to indulge their guests in every wish, whilst they themselves leave their homes, and retire into the city, and the stranger lives in the house with the females as if they were his own wives.' (Book 1, Ch.37).

[The people of Bascia] 'worship idols; are of dark complexion, and of evil disposition; and are skilled in the art of magic, and the invocation of demons, a study to which they continually apply themselves...' (Book 1, Ch.26).

'...the old man of the mountain...named Aloadin, his religion was that of Mahomet. In a beautiful valley enclosed between two lofty mountains, he had formed a luxurious garden, stored with every delicious fruit and every fragrant shrub that could be procured. Palaces of various sizes and forms were built in different parts of the grounds, ornamented with works in gold, with paintings, and with furniture of rich silks. By means of small conduits contrived in these buildings, streams of wine, milk, honey, and some of pure water, were seen to flow in every direction. The inhabitants of these palaces were elegant and beautiful damsels, accomplished in the arts of singing, playing upon all sorts of musical instruments, dancing, and especially those dalliance and amorous allurement...

...The object which the chief had in view in forming a garden of this fascinating kind, was this: that Mahomet having promised to those who should obey his will the enjoyments of paradise...he was desirous of its being understood by his followers that he also was a prophet and the compeer of Mahomet, and had the power of admitting to paradise such as he should choose to favour...at certain times he cause opium to be administered to ten or a dozen youths; and when half dead with sleep he had them conveyed to the several apartments of the palaces in the garden. Upon awakening from the state of lethargy, their senses were struck with all the delightful objects that have been described, and each perceived himself surrounded by lovey damsels, singing, playing, and attracting his regards by the most fascinating caresses, serving him with delicate viands and exquisite wines; until intoxicated with excess of enjoyment amidst actual rivulets of milk, and wine, he believed himself assuredly in paradise, and felt an unwillingness to relinquish its delights...

...When four or five days had thus been passed, they were thrown once more into a state of somnolency, and carried out of the garden. Upon being introduced to his presence, and questioned by him as to where they had been, their answer was 'In paradise, through the favour of your highness': and then before the whole court...they gave a circumstantial account of the scenes to which they had been witness. The Chief, thereupon addressing them, said, 'We have the assurances of our prophet that he who defends his lord shall inherit paradise, and if you show yourselves devoted to the obedience of my orders, that happy lot awaits you...

...all deemed themselves happy to receive the commands of their master, and were forward to die in his service...

...his tyranny became the subject of dread in all the surrounding countries...[and] there was no person, however powerful, who, having become exposed to the enmity of the Old Man of the Mountain, could escape assassination!'
dreuxeng is offline  
Old January 7th, 2017, 06:03 AM   #36

Kookaburra Jack's Avatar
Joined: May 2011
From: Rural Australia
Posts: 2,124

Originally Posted by Kirialax View Post
Why is it dangerous?

This key question has remained unanswered.

Originally Posted by VHS View Post
Seriously, native people in North America are not victors, but they get more recognition than previously.
The earlier "Colonial Histories" of the native people in North America and Australia (and elsewhere) essentially represented some form of "pioneering myth". They do not mention (or briefly mention) the impact on the indigenous culture by the victorious colonists. They place emphasis on the colonists' achievements in conquering the land. They omit or minimise military conflicts. These earlier colonial histories (pre 1970's for USA & OZ) forged and promulgated a paradigm of a good and peaceful "Colony" in order to shore up a new nationalism. In doing so they swept a whole lot of stuff "under the carpet of history".

In one sense there was a conspiracy of silence (in at least the generation which authored the "Earlier Colonial Histories") that had the effect of suppressing most, if not all recognition, of the native peoples. The narrative was myopically "Colonial Centric".

"Review everything" is dangerous in history, but should historical records subject to scrutiny?

How can it possibly be dangerous to history or the "historical truth" to review the primary and secondary sources of historical evidence?

Of course historical records should be subject to scrutiny.

I have a thread about historical revisionism here:

Comparing early Church History with early Colonial History

Feel free to contribute.

Last edited by Kookaburra Jack; January 7th, 2017 at 06:06 AM.
Kookaburra Jack is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 02:45 AM   #37
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,344

Originally Posted by songtsen View Post
I believe that there will be a lot more revisionism as African and Asian countries get more educated and start rewrtiting their own histories. Most will be of nationalistic junk nevertheless it will hopefully be not too bad.
Originally Posted by Utah Jay View Post
Black Athena by Martin Bernal is an example. I have not read this though.
No, not really. It was not written by an African or an Asian and is not nationalistic. It is a particular version of an argument/theory that was already around before he wrote the book; the argument being that the civilization of ancient Greece was greatly influenced by "Afroasiatic" groups such as the Egyptians and Phoenicians.

Of course it is clear (to all reasonable people who are not extreme Greek or European nationalists themselves) that such influence occurred, since evidence of borrowing still survives for certain things. The only issue is what the extent of such influence was and whether it was as great as Bernal believed it was. Bernal argued in multiple books and articles that the extent of such borrowings and influence was much greater than was admitted. The man is dead now, but there are still publications coming out which attack or defend part or all of his work on this issue.

I can certainly agree with the idea that the work itself (Black Athena) is revisionist (the author's attempt at revisionism against what he believed was western revisionism that had become the standard or accepted historical narrative by the 20th century), but it is not at all nationalistic revisionism.

There are works by other western scholars that are analogous to or even more "extreme" counterparts to Bernal's work which argue that certain civilizations were hugely influenced by certain outside peoples - usually lighter skinned peoples - leading to the development of "civilization" as we know it among such people. Some of these claims - often lacking even the slightest bit of potential evidence to support them - have not had as controversial a reception in academia as Bernal's work had.

Another non-nationalistic book which makes arguments along a related line of thought - but with much less ambitious/controversial claims than Bernal's work - is Jack Goody's book The Theft of History.
Ighayere is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 03:05 AM   #38
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,344

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.
There are indigenous black people in parts of North Africa such as Morocco, Mauritania, Egypt, and Libya. Actually, Mauritania has more people that are either black or mixed with black than it has "Mediterranean type" non-black people. And when I say indigenous, I don't just mean that they've been there for a few hundred years because of the slave trade. I mean that they've been there much longer than that, and were not brought there by the slave trade.
Ighayere is offline  
Old January 8th, 2017, 03:46 AM   #39

Tulius's Avatar
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,692

Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
Greek or European nationalists
European nationalists? Does that exist? I wish! The EU would have much more solid bases.

As a side note the influences of the Phoenicians and ancient Egyptian in the Ancient Greek seem generally accepted. They were (are) neighbors. They interacted. Interaction is influence.

Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
There are indigenous black people in parts of North Africa such as Morocco, Mauritania, Egypt, and Libya. Actually, Mauritania has more people that are either black or mixed with black than it has "Mediterranean type" non-black people. And when I say indigenous, I don't just mean that they've been there for a few hundred years because of the slave trade. I mean that they've been there much longer than that, and were not brought there by the slave trade.
When the Portuguese begun to explore the West Coast of Africa, in the 15th century, the Senegal river was pointed as the skin color frontier, if is that frontier that you are trying to establish. Not that the skin color should be much relevant, but it is a issue that is usually brought in here in the Forum. Anyway, there were Africans both North and South of the Senegal River. Africa is just a geographical concept, as any other continent. Its frontiers are arbitrary. Were defined that way, so we can have geographical references.
Tulius is online now  
Old January 8th, 2017, 03:47 AM   #40

Hannibal89's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Carthage
Posts: 303

Originally Posted by Utah Jay View Post
Black Athena by Martin Bernal is an example. I have not read this though.

Bernal wasn't even Black, and to be honest I think his agenda was to push a more Near East "Asian" perspective as to Western civilization's awakening. With Africa helping too. After all he was a far east scholar long before...idk I could be wrong though... He meant well.
Hannibal89 is offline  

  Historum > World History Forum > General History


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 07:32 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.