Question

[LaundryBob]

Why is revisionist history prohibited on this website?

[Father Mulcahey]

Hey Bob, hows freedom forums, havent been in a while. To answer your question, it is very politically correct around here, and the Nazis/Germans are the bad guys

[LaundryBob]

Hey m8. They are down at the moment, but they will be restored at http://www.thephora.com soon.

[Marcus]

I don't really care if someone believe in the holocaust or not as everyone is free to believe what they want no matter how ridicolous as far as I am concerned, but if they want to offened the memory of those who suffered and died (and of course their relatives and friends) then they will have to find another forum to do it in because I will not tolerate such garbage here!

/Marcus

[Yedith]

Marcus' reason for banning "revisionist history" is an excellent one, and one that I'm sure many appreciate. However, another good reason for keeping it out of these fora is that "revisionist history" is a tautology that only keeps misinformation and ignorance, and their dark fruits, alive and well. As far as I can tell, these fora are instruments of debate (not always civilized, but hey, seen worse in university faculty meetings) and instruction towards the historically accurate, rather than that which has already been labeled "revisionist"

of course, the question of who judges the issue of what is "revisonist" can get interesting.....

[Roberto]

Marcus' reason for banning "revisionist history" is an excellent one, and one that I'm sure many appreciate. However, another good reason for keeping it out of these fora is that "revisionist history" is a tautology that only keeps misinformation and ignorance, and their dark fruits, alive and well. As far as I can tell, these fora are instruments of debate (not always civilized, but hey, seen worse in university faculty meetings) and instruction towards the historically accurate, rather than that which has already been labeled "revisionist"

of course, the question of who judges the issue of what is "revisonist" can get interesting.....

I once opened a poll on the old forum about the subject of "Revisionism" (the quote marks are because the propaganda that calls itself "Revisionism" has nothing to do with revisionism in the sense of a legitimate method of historiography. The results were quite interesting. Have a look:

What is the real purpose of holocaust revisionism
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... D=49.topic

[Scott Smith]

Marcus' reason for banning "revisionist history" is an excellent one, and one that I'm sure many appreciate. However, another good reason for keeping it out of these fora is that "revisionist history" is a tautology that only keeps misinformation and ignorance, and their dark fruits, alive and well. As far as I can tell, these fora are instruments of debate (not always civilized, but hey, seen worse in university faculty meetings) and instruction towards the historically accurate, rather than that which has already been labeled "revisionist"

of course, the question of who judges the issue of what is "revisonist" can get interesting.....

"Revisionist history" is a tautology because the proper historical method includes revisionism (small r), including the process of debate. And that would include "revision" of the Holocaust. How much Holocaust Revisionism (large R) is really revisionism (small r) is debatable. But History that revolves around an orthodox position is not History but theology. Ignorance would be to NOT debate or reexamine the unthinkable.


The doyen of Holocaust Revisionists, Professor Robert Faurisson says:

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

Revisionism is a matter of method and not an ideology.

It demands, in all research, a return to the starting point, an examination followed by re-examination, re-reading and rewriting, evaluation followed by revaluation, reorientation, revision, recasting. It is, in spirit, the contrary of ideology. It does not deny, but instead aims to affirm with greater exactitude. Revisionists are not "deniers" (or, to use the French expression, "negationists"). Rather, they endeavor to seek and to find things where, it seemed, there was nothing more to seek or find.

Revisionism can be carried out in a hundred activities of everyday life and in a hundred fields of historical, scientific, or literary research. It does not necessarily call established ideas into question, but often leads to qualifying them somewhat. It seeks to untangle the true from the false. History is, in essence, revisionist; ideology is its enemy. Because ideology is strongest during times of war or conflict, and because it then churns out falsehood in abundance for propaganda needs, the historian working in that area is well advised to redouble his vigilance. In probing deep into the "truths" of which he has been reminded so often, he will doubtless realize that, when a war has led to tens of millions of deaths, the very first victim is the ascertainable truth: a truth that must be sought out and re-established.

The official history of the Second World War comprises a bit of truth mixed with a great deal of falsehood.

CLICK! Professor Robert Faurisson and his Revisionist Method!

[Yedith]

Good point, Robert. I was referring to the uncritical, nonacademic "R" type of revisionism. However, I'm not sure "Revisionism" is theology, which should be using the same criteria for viewing text and ideas as history. "Ideology" might be a better comparison.
Chargined, but grateful for the clarification....

[Scott Smith]

Good point, Robert. I was referring to the uncritical, nonacademic "R" type of revisionism. However, I'm not sure "Revisionism" is theology, which should be using the same criteria for viewing text and ideas as history. "Ideology" might be a better comparison.
Chargined, but grateful for the clarification....

Long hair and beads and the presence or lack of academic titles does not make one a revisionist historian, regardless of the genre. Those who are unwilling to look at "sacred cows" may call themselves revisionist but are really nothing more than orthodox court-historians unable to venture outside of the box.

The proposition that History is proprietary or "owned" is ideology. Some Revisionists (large R) may be ideologues. However, revisionism in any sense is not theology but seeks to overturn such vested interests and viewpoints for its own sake.

Even if some H-Revisionists are ideologues, the anti-Revisionists are more so because it is they who want no critical examination of "established" sacred cows--and that is theology.

[Roberto]

Long hair and beads and the presence or lack of academic titles does not make one a revisionist historian, regardless of the genre. Those who are unwilling to look at "sacred cows" may call themselves revisionist but are really nothing more than orthodox court-historians unable to venture outside of the box.

Dead wrong, Mr. Smith. The true revisionists are those who provide new evidence in order to re-assess the background of certain historical events, instead of challenging the evidence to proven historical facts on the basis of nonsensical considerations, distorting and misrepresenting it or dismissing it altogether because it does not fit into a certain ideological bubble. Those who pretend to be willing to look at “sacred cows”, on the other hand, are mere propagandists uncomfortable with facts inconvenient to the credo they adhere to, and they are so woefully unable and unwilling to face up to the evidence challenging their Faith that they defend themselves against it with claws and teeth. “Revisionists”, which is what those freaks call themselves, is the last thing they actually are.

The proposition that History is proprietary or "owned" is ideology.

Exactly. And “Revisionists” would badly like to own history, wouldn’t they? At least they do what they can to twist the facts their way.

Some Revisionists (large R) may be ideologues.

Show us one who is not, Mr. Smith.

However, revisionism in any sense is not theology but seeks to overturn such vested interests and viewpoints for its own sake.

Wrong again. Revisionism in the proper sense of the word is aimed at nothing other than furthering historical knowledge. “Revisionism” in the sense of the hate propagandists who inappropriately apply this term to themselves, on the other hand, is the bigot defense of a quasi-religious creed, as close to theology as anything I have come across.

Even if some H-Revisionists are ideologues,

Such as?

the anti-Revisionists are more so because it is they who want no critical examination of "established" sacred cows--and that is theology.

Wrong again, my dear Sir. The critics of “Revisionism” are not defending any “sacred cows”. What they do is probe “Revisionist” theories for their consistence with the facts, which generally results in the conclusion that such theories, far from being a “critical examination” of anything “established”, are quasi-theological attempts to get rid of facts inconvenient to an ideological agenda.

[Scott Smith]

[Roberto]

Yeah, better watch out, ye Faithful. Your quacks seem to be running out of the bottles containing the concoctions of intellectual manure that you so eagerly swallow.

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

[Yedith]

OK, this is off-topic, but I'd like to clarify what "theology" is (or ought to be) and isn't. There is, after all, an "-ology" at the end of the word;

Roberto writes

The true revisionists are those who provide new evidence in order to re-assess the background of certain historical events, instead of challenging the evidence to proven historical facts on the basis of nonsensical considerations, distorting and misrepresenting it or dismissing it altogether because it does not fit into a certain ideological bubble. Those who pretend to be willing to look at “sacred cows”, on the other hand, are mere propagandists uncomfortable with facts inconvenient to the credo they adhere to, and they are so woefully unable and unwilling to face up to the evidence challenging their Faith that they defend themselves against it with claws and teeth.

THAT is what theology is.. a search for new evidence and new understanding of existing concepts and often DOES attack the sacred cows. This is one reason real "theology" is often not thought highly of by the Faithful, of whatever ilk!

And yes, I know a lot of teaching that is supposed to be "theology" is actually the reverse and more in line with Mr. Smith's definition, but that is not theology. More like "Sunday School" for the uncritical orthodox (note the lowercase "o", please).

Pardon the ruffling of academic feathers, and feel free to remove this if this is too off-topic

Regards, all ya'll...
Yedith

[Roberto]

Pardon the ruffling of academic feathers, and feel free if this is too off-topic

By no means, it’s a rather useful clarification.

You may have noticed that, like all true propagandists, “Revisionists” have a penchant for accusing their opponents of what are actually their own fallacies – adherence to a quasi-religious faith that does not admit contrary evidence being one of them.

Here’s an article on “Revisionist” methodology that you may enjoy reading:

http://www.webstar5.com/electriczen/revisionism.html

Cheers,

Roberto

[Scott Smith]

And yes, I know a lot of teaching that is supposed to be "theology" is actually the reverse and more in line with Mr. Smith's definition, but that is not theology. More like "Sunday School" for the uncritical orthodox (note the lowercase "o", please).

Okay, Yedith, I can accept that. But how would we differentiate between "legitimate" theology (or the scholarly study of God and religion) and theology (according to my definition) of a Faith-based orthodoxy? In other words, doesn't it always boil down to value-judgments made about the unknowable?

And that is not SCIENCE, which is a collection of contingent theories based on the facts as they are presently known. I can't think of any religion that uses a "Maybe" cosmology. They are usually quite explicit as to what their doctrines are and what they say the universe is.

Pardon the ruffling of academic feathers, and feel free to remove this if this is too off-topic

I don't think it is off-topic at all. In fact, it is an insightful question that may affect our views of the Third Reich. Of course, Laundry Bob started the thread, so the agenda is really his, not ours.