Revising Revisionism

SON: Mom, I have a problem. I have been studying the Civil War in class and something
just doesn't make any sense.
MOM: What's that?
SON: Well, looking at the confederate army it is hard to believe that they were fighting
for slavery. Most of the soldiers like Robert E. Lee didn't own slaves and were scratching out a
living in direct competition with slave owners like Ulysses Grant and Julia Dent. How could the
war be about slavery?
MOM: It is interesting. What you need to understand is that all history is revisionist
history. It is written and taught from the perspective and those in charge with the idea of making
those in charge look good. For example Thucydides and Herodotus wrote their histories from
their perspective and with the idea of making the Greek people and Culture seem the best.
Shakespeare wouldn't have lasted too long if he had written his play showing Richard III as
being innocent when Elizabeth's Grandfather kicked his ass at Bosworth field--it was a career
decision by William when he chose to make Richard III out to be an evil person. Or like when
Republicans argue that it was World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression while the
Democrats argue that it was programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority. Truth is no matter
how you look at it both sides are pointing out that Sir John Maynard Keynes was right about
Government Spendingyoure either spending on social programs or creating war materiel in
both cases the government is spending.
SON: I think I am beginning to understand.
MOM: Another thing quite overlooked by the general public because it is beyond their
understanding is that often original translations of original records have mistakes or errors. Many
of the manuscripts were handwritten and copied over and over by persons who were not
necessarily able to read themselves or barely able to read.
SON: How is that possible?
MOM: Well, I bet if I put a book written in Chinese Characters in front of you and told
you to copy it you would be able to reproduce any of the characters but there is a chance because
you dont know the language or what the characters stand for you would make mistakes which
would change the meaning. As I give it to another of your friends to copy and another and
another Im willing to be that though you will be able to copy most symbols right there will be
more and more mistakes which are copied forward and mistakes originating with each successive
copy being made.
SON: Okay.
MOM: Then there are manuscripts or texts carved into walls which have been heavily
damaged and portions of the original writing are missing and have been filled in through
conjecture. Then there is the problem with translating as well. For example there is a phrase in
German which states Ich stehe in Kreider, which translated word for word means I am
standing in chalk. To any translator who knows the German words but not the German culture
like translating with a dictionary it sounds like the person is standing in chalk and that is a

possibility. But it is also a phrase used in finances by the Germans which means I am in debt. So
which is it? Or in some cases the translation itself is a deliberate miss translation such as King
James having the word Witch substituted for Soothsayer or Seer in the Bible when he
commissioned it to be translated into English. Truth is King James was devoutly religious and
was against any other religion such as witches. Even modern electronic translators have
problems how is a computer to tell the difference between a watch as in something that tells
time, watch that is a security force, or watch as in the idea of looking at something like a movie
or sporting event? To this day there is a debate over one word in Platos description of Atlantis
and it changes everything one version has the word which is smeared as being the word that
means as big as and another is as being located between. So historians looking at the context
cant even tell what it means. Either interpretation or guess at the word fits. The whole phrase is
either Atlantis is located between Africa and Europe or Atlantis is as big as Africa and
Europe. On top of miss translations and better scholars who are able to give better translations
or discovered books or pieces of parchment with missing information there has also been a lot of
censorship and hiding of things from the public. Look at all of the classified information or even
the volumes of ancient writings hidden in the Vatican.
SON: I think that I see what you're saying. But why is everyone screaming about
Revisionist History?
MOM: There are people who have rewritten parts of history to make something seem
legit or okay such as Hussein claiming that Kuwait was part of Iraq when Kuwait was a
sovereign state when Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire according to a lot of old maps. He
used it as his justification to invade Kuwait. However, most situations when Revisionism is
being yelled is just a case when someone is shedding light on an event from other perspectives or
have discovered the other side's story or they have discovered things which were suppressed by
the people who originally wrote the history. Hitler and others were notorious for telling history
only from a German Perspective. He would say things like all great musicians from Bach to
Beethoven were Germanof course he was only listing German Composers failing out of
convenience and for manipulative purposes to mention all the great composers of other ethnic
groups and there are many. Another great revision were the Soviets who claimed that a Russian
invented the helicopter and they were right but they forgot to say that that Russian Igor Sikorsky
was actually a citizen of the United States when he did. For example most people would rather
hear that the U.S. was doing something noble when it fought with the South, something noble
like ending slavery. Think how it would look if people found out it was fought over something
like the North was imposing its economic views on the South. Imagine how it would look if
people learned that Lincoln refused to declare that it was over slavery when Garibaldi asked him
to because Lincoln was worried about the harvest in 1861 getting completed. Imagine how it
would sound if the people were taught that the North was trying to force the South into not
buying British Steel but into buying Northern Steel which was more expensive and of poorer
quality. Truth is Northern Steel could have competed with British Steel but the owners and
investors or capitalists wouldnt have made as much as they were. Yet, there it is in Lincoln's
own speeches and notes he left behind and it has always been there for people to read and
discover themselves. It was just largely ignored and not publicized because for most of the time
after Lincoln we were on a nationalistic rush and people wanted to believe that America was this
great savior and beacon of the world--even though we were 4th to the last in the Western
Hemisphere to illegalize slavery. I think that for the most part if you were to write a book that
told more of the whole story of how the Republican Party was the shills of Northern industry and

doing all they could to get their rich buddies even richer it wouldn't even sell not because it is
wrong but because Americans wouldn't want to hear it and would scream revisionism.
SON: Yet at the same time they scream for and embrace trickle down economics which is
the same thing your book would be saying that they were doing.
MOM: Exactly son, most people rather have someone else do the work and tell them
what to think that is why we have leaders. And the leaders maintain their position by telling the
people what they want to hear. Someone discovering another side of an event in history shakes
all of this up and they scream revisionists to protect their little bubble of security in their
personal alliances and comfort. What you need to do is think for yourself and check every thing
and question everything and dig. Most of this "Revisionist" history is out there and has been
staring us right in the eye.