Let’s pretend it’s 1946. And a historian, let’s call him Mr Smith, decides to publish
a history book on the Second World War, where he states - “Hitler was blonde”.
Anyone who questions that view, who asks ‘Is that really the case?’, or presents evidence
that says this isn’t true - is trying to rewrite history and therefore is a “revisionist
historian”. Does no one see the problem with this?
If the first 50 historians that wrote books
on the war got it wrong, are we not allowed to question them?
“No you’re not allowed! You’re just trying to rewrite history because you’re
a REVISIONIST HISTORIAN”. When someone uses the term ‘revisionist historian’ as an
accusation, what they’re actually accusing the person of is historical negationism, or
denialism - which is someone trying to deliberately distort history. This phrase - revisionist
- leads people to conclude - if you’re revising history, you’re distorting history. But
revising history is necessary! Let me give you some examples of how revising history
has led to a growth of our understanding of the past. You may have heard of the term “The
Dark Ages” right? Well, this is a lie. They were dark - if you read nothing but Latin,
which is what most people did back in the day. But if you read any of the other
native languages, you’ll find that - no, the Dark Ages aren’t as dark as we once
thought they were. A language barrier blocked our perception - our view of history, but doesn’t any more,
to the point that the term “Dark Ages” is now being considered defunct. Julius Caesar (or Kay-zir
as his name might actually be said) was born of cesarean, right? Caesar - cesarean? That’s
where the term comes from, right?
No. Cesareans in ancient times resulted in the death of the mother. But Caesar’s mother
lived through childbirth, so he couldn’t have been born of cesarean. The term most
likely came from the Lex Caesarea (Imperial Law) which ordered doctors to perform a cesarean
if the mother died. It’s still disputed, but the point is, if you don’t revise history,
we would still believe the lie. All this boils down to a fundamental
misunderstanding of history, and the job of a historian. The first historian says something
happened one way. The next historian questions that and comes to a different conclusion.
Then the next comes along and revises that, and so on. This is the historical process
- the historiography. It is constantly changing, it is constantly evolving. History does not
stand still. It is a debate. Even the dates change. Manstein deliberately changed the
dates of the Stalingrad breakout attempt in his memoirs to put the blame on Paulus. So,
the early histories used Manstein’s incorrect dates, and came to the wrong conclusions.
So yes, even the dates might change. A historian revises history - that’s what they do. If
they don’t revise history, if they don’t question things, they’re doing a bad job.
In fact, they’re out of a job, because this is what they’re supposed to be doing - finding
more evidence or reinterpreting the evidence they already have to figure out the truth from the lies. If
they’re not doing that, what are they doing? Other than signing onto the unemployment register.
A ‘revisionist historian’ - is what a historian is. But the term “revisionist
historian” is used in a negative way by people accusing others of rewriting history
for some sort of hidden agenda. And because the term “revisionist” implies you’re
not allowed to revise history, it leads people to the wrong conclusions, and therefore, for
the greater historical good, the term should be changed - revised. Now, as I said, terms
do exist for this type of historian - negationist, or denialist - but they’re a little bit unwieldy.
So I’m going to propose a different term, one that already exists, from 2006 as a noun
on the website, urbandictionary.com. It doesn’t exist elsewhere as far as I can see, but I’m
bringing it to life now. Distorian - a person who distorts, rather than honestly
reports, history. The other points I don’t agree with, but point 1 I do. So, revisionist
historian is good. Distorian is bad. The term Distorian implies that you’re distorting history.
It implies that you’re being dishonest. It implies you’re spreading disinformation.
It also implies you’re not a true historian - you’re a distorian. That’s probably
what you’re aiming for, for those of you stuck in your ways, when you use the term
revisionist historian against people you don’t agree with. But it doesn’t imply that revising
or “rewriting” history is wrong, which it isn’t. History is constantly being rewritten
- and that’s a good thing. I think the fear people have is that all this rewriting could distort
history. If a historian doesn’t use the sources correctly, or deliberately manipulates
them to push their own agenda or view, then yes they will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
Which is why you should read more than one book on a subject. And why historians need
to use the sources correctly. But if you do use the sources correctly, in a balanced way,
you can come to a deeper understanding of the events that you’re looking at. You may even
be able to answer the questions or the problems others couldn’t answer, because they were unwilling to question
- or revise - history. So go out there and revise history. And if someone doesn’t like the fact that
you are revising history, send them to this video, so I can explain to them how wrong they are. Please
check out my other videos, look both ways when you cross the road, don’t believe everything
you hear, make haste slowly, the bronze age was the third best age in history, don’t
trust atoms, they make up everything, I don’t think you’d grasp the one about the red
hot poker, Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, in Soviet Russia, video ends you.