Contentious historian on bbc2 now

Morlar

For anyone who is interested there is an interview on bbc2 just started with a revisionist historian of Irish history Robert Forster. Not someone I would approve of but could be interesting.

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

For anyone who is interested there is an interview on bbc2 just started with a revisionist historian of Irish history Robert Forster. Not someone I would approve of but could be interesting.

Do you mean R. F. Foster - Roy Foster? I've listened to enough of his talks to last me for awhile. These revisionists have their own agenda and are as selective and narrow as those they claim to be writing against - all the while ignoring the steady work of genuinely credible Irish historians.

Foster's use of "Celtic Tiger Ireland" as evidence somehow of a debt to colonialism has really fallen flat.

donaghs

Revisionist is often used in a Irish sense to describe those who are anti-Nationalist. But in a sense we are all revisionist if we have an open mind, and are willing to change our view based on new evidence.

Morlar

MarchDub wrote: »

Do you mean R. F. Foster - Roy Foster? .

That's the one - not Rob - Roy

donaghs wrote: »

But in a sense we are all revisionist if we have an open mind, and are willing to change our view based on new evidence.

I would agree technically. Perhaps sometimes the historian's motivation can be a factor here too though.

brianthebard

Morlar wrote: »

That's the one - not Rob - Roy



I would agree technically. Perhaps sometimes the historian's motivation can be a factor here too though.

That could be said about every historian though.

MarchDub

donaghs wrote: »

Revisionist is often used in a Irish sense to describe those who are anti-Nationalist. But in a sense we are all revisionist if we have an open mind, and are willing to change our view based on new evidence.

The term "revisionist" is not confined to the Irish situation at all and is found wherever historians work. The contemporary meaning has changed somewhat from what you describe - which is true of course, that historians should all have open minds and alter positions based on new evidence. But that is not the only current meaning as applied to historiography.

The current use of the term - in the pejorative sense - comes from the Soviet Union and the so called "revising" of Marxist theory to justify the retreat from the "revolutionary" position to a "reformist" position. In that sense it is used to describe historians who claim to be impartial in altering the record but in fact have an agenda and are not working as impartial truth seekers.

brianthebard

I've only ever heard the term revisionism used as an insult on these boards, its certainly not used in the way you describe in lectures or classes. I would like to see a reference to back up the example you have given because again I have never heard it used in this context. While revisionism is not confined to Irish history the use of the term as an insult almost always is confined to Irish history in my experience.

Morlar

I would have thought the area of history where it is most used as an insult would be WW2 - or as someone else mentioned russian historians. Irish history in comparison is a relatively minor field.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I've only ever heard the term revisionism used as an insult on these boards, its certainly not used in the way you describe in lectures or classes. I would like to see a reference to back up the example you have given because again I have never heard it used in this context. While revisionism is not confined to Irish history the use of the term as an insult almost always is confined to Irish history in my experience.

Plenty of references available to support my point. Here is Webster's dictionary and dictionary.com. AFAIK the contemporary use is based on the Soviet experience. I can remember the cold war and the discussion about their "revising" Marxism to suit their own reality. Whether what they were doing was justified or not the use of the word "revisionist" became a sort of soviet joke amongst the Western press.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revisionist?o=100074

re·vi·sion·ism (rĭ-vĭzh'[font=&quot]ə[/font]-nĭz'[font=&quot]ə[/font]m)
n.

• Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.
• A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position.

The pejorative use of the term is wider than Ireland - I have heard it used for US historians regarding both the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and Vietnam. Even George Bush used it against historians to defend his WMD position prior to going into Iraq - the "revisionists" were already re-writing the events, he claimed. Predictably he got plenty of argument back.


Here is an article on the Middle East with the same pejorative use of the term.

http://www.netanyahu.org/jewhisrevwin.html

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

I've only ever heard the term revisionism used as an insult on these boards

The famine threads on AH/CT come to mind...

MiniDriver

Oh dear. I was hoping the programme was going to be about Oswald Spengler. There's contentious for you.

Amtmann

There's a similar schism in American historiography relating to the history of US foreign policy from the time of the Monroe Doctrine right down to the present. Over there, though, it's revisionists vs. 'orthodox' historians. In continental European circles, you have the opposite, where revisionists tend to be quite conservative. The example I'd give would be Francois Furet, the French historian who held that the revolution of 1789 was not so laudable an event as his orthodox contemporaries contended.

Snickers Man

The term "revisionist" historian is, or should be, a tautology. All historians are either revisionists or plagiarists.

Revision comes from the Latin revidere meaning to look again. Any work on any historical topic requires loooking again at the events, the pertinent facts, the reactions to the events and the consequences of the events. Which in some cases can include the way in which they were reported by contemporaries and even by other historians.

Revision is not synonymous with falsifying history. It is an essential part of recording the wider facts and helping to arrive at some understanding of truth.

brianthebard

Agree wholeheartedly. also, I want a snickers now for some reason....

MarchDub

Snickers Man wrote: »

The term "revisionist" historian is, or should be, a tautology. All historians are either revisionists or plagiarists.

Revision comes from the Latin revidere meaning to look again. Any work on any historical topic requires loooking again at the events, the pertinent facts, the reactions to the events and the consequences of the events. Which in some cases can include the way in which they were reported by contemporaries and even by other historians.

Revision is not synonymous with falsifying history. It is an essential part of recording the wider facts and helping to arrive at some understanding of truth.

I have to disagree and for a very specific reason. Giving an explanation on what you understand the etymology of a word to be does not halt the progression of word meaning. It makes a nonsense out of language to expect that what a word means once is what a word always means. Language is not static. Semantic change or semantic shift occurs when application alters and the connotation or association of a word changes the way that word is used.

If, for instance, I were to say someone "I think you're very nice," in the modern usage of the word the person would be happy and feel complimented. However, if I were to say the exact same thing to someone two hundred years ago it would be heard as an insult. The meaning and use of the word "nice" has altered considerably since its acceptance into English. Someone using the word today means something different from a person using the word two hundred years ago – and we would hold no one to the former usage.

"Revisionist" as used today [and for some years] when applied to historiography is going through a transition in meaning- as language does. As discussed at length here with supportive attestation from many sources- it no longer has the singular meaning that you describe. That is a simple fact. It's not a matter of how you understand the word - or the word origin - it's a matter of how the word is now being applied within the contemporary lexicon.

donaghs

Some words can have different meanings. And in my view, this is the case with "revisionist". I see it as meaning either,
(1) in neutral sense: having a revised view of history or events, normally based on new info.
(2) in a pejorative sense: someone who deliberately tries try to change people's perception of history to suit their own agenda.

Looking at again at previous posts, I suppose I don't entirely agree that it is a "tautology".
But I also feel that if people only accept that the pejorative view exists, they themselves are locked into an ideological prison.

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

I have to disagree and for a very specific reason. Giving an explanation on what you understand the etymology of a word to be does not halt the progression of word meaning. It makes a nonsense out of language to expect that what a word means once is what a word always means. Language is not static. Semantic change or semantic shift occurs when application alters and the connotation or association of a word changes the way that word is used.

If, for instance, I were to say someone "I think you're very nice," in the modern usage of the word the person would be happy and feel complimented. However, if I were to say the exact same thing to someone two hundred years ago it would be heard as an insult. The meaning and use of the word "nice" has altered considerably since its acceptance into English. Someone using the word today means something different from a person using the word two hundred years ago – and we would hold no one to the former usage.

"Revisionist" as used today [and for some years] when applied to historiography is going through a transition in meaning- as language does. As discussed at length here with supportive attestation from many sources- it no longer has the singular meaning that you describe. That is a simple fact. It's not a matter of how you understand the word - or the word origin - it's a matter of how the word is now being applied within the contemporary lexicon.

I think you've gone a bit too far tbh Marchdub. Yes language changes but Revisionism refers to a specific school of historiography, that cannot be changed. Whether people use it as an insult or not will not affect this. You seem to be suggesting that we leave behind the original meaning which is just as bad as suggesting the pejorative meaning does not exist.

However what is really important here is to look at the reasons the word is used in the context it is. Most of the time when people refer to revisionism or revisionists in an insulting way they are really calling them negationists, people who pretend some event did not happen in history, or play down its significance. This is not what revisionism is about, and I think people often do not make that distinction.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

I think you've gone a bit too far tbh Marchdub. Yes language changes but Revisionism refers to a specific school of historiography, that cannot be changed. Whether people use it as an insult or not will not affect this. You seem to be suggesting that we leave behind the original meaning which is just as bad as suggesting the pejorative meaning does not exist.

However what is really important here is to look at the reasons the word is used in the context it is. Most of the time when people refer to revisionism or revisionists in an insulting way they are really calling them negationists, people who pretend some event did not happen in history, or play down its significance. This is not what revisionism is about, and I think people often do not make that distinction.

I am not for a moment suggesting that we leave behind the original meaning. That is not at all what I am saying. But only explaining that language evolves and usage comes in to play with meaning. The word "gay" is a good example. It has taken on another meaning within the past 30 years notwithstanding its original etymology. It is a fact that the word "revisionism" has come to ALSO mean historians who have an agenda and an interest in changing the accepted view of the past. The Marxist example is a case in point. There have been a number of examples of this usage given in other posts. You may not agree with how it is being used, or may find it offensive but nevertheless that is how it is being used.

brianthebard

tbh I think its sort of dangerous to equate revisionism with agenda driven historiography, and I don't feel particularly comfortable with the idea. Nor do I believe that it is a widespread occurance outside of forums like this.

MarchDub

Within any discipline or branch of learning it is nearly impossible to get anyone to admit rogue elements - bad for business would be the attitude. Or worse, "we will all be discredited" sort of thinking. Nevertheless I think it equally bad for any body - or any organization - to close ranks and insist that all is well, above board, and that doubts about its honesty and validly are all coming from outside elements. Seen that too often.

The reality is that some historians have been in the business of trying to shape the record since the beginning of a written record.

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

Within any discipline or branch of learning it is nearly impossible to get anyone to admit rogue elements - bad for business would be the attitude. Or worse, "we will all be discredited" sort of thinking. Nevertheless I think it equally bad for any body - or any organization - to close ranks and insist that all is well, above board, and that doubts about its honesty and validly are all coming from outside elements. Seen that too often.

The reality is that some historians have been in the business of trying to shape the record since the beginning of a written record.

Where did I suggest otherwise? Of course there are bad historians, but the problem is you tar all revisionists with the same brush by using the term as an insult, when there's really no need to. When we speak about holocaust deniers to use an extreme example, we call them negationists not revisionists. It would be disrespectful, apart from confusing and pointless, to give them the title of revisionist when they are clearly not.
Now obviously most will not fall into such an extreme category, but it still does no good to the study of history in general to use the term revisionism as an insult just because someone has an agenda, or more usually because they have a position that someone does not agree.
Now more specific to the thread, R.F. Foster is a very well respected revisionist historian and should not be dismissed because of his associations with that school of historiography.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Where did I suggest otherwise? Of course there are bad historians, but the problem is you tar all revisionists with the same brush by using the term as an insult, when there's really no need to. When we speak about holocaust deniers to use an extreme example, we call them negationists not revisionists. It would be disrespectful, apart from confusing and pointless, to give them the title of revisionist when they are clearly not.
Now obviously most will not fall into such an extreme category, but it still does no good to the study of history in general to use the term revisionism as an insult just because someone has an agenda, or more usually because they have a position that someone does not agree.
Now more specific to the thread, R.F. Foster is a very well respected revisionist historian and should not be dismissed because of his associations with that school of historiography.

I have tried to keep my posts on this thread fit a more generalised dialogue and I certainly don't want to get into personal attacks on any current historian but there is far from a consensus on Foster's work being "well respected" amongst all historians. Both in Ireland and outside I have heard comments from some members of the academic community that are not at all complimentary or indicative of anything other than bordering on contempt.

brianthebard

I never suggested there was universal consensus, I doubt there's anyone out there who everyone agrees is a great historian, and due to the nature of the business I'm sure some would disagree just because everyone else went the other way.
As for the comments you heard, I'm afraid unless they were on the record then its really just gossip and/or sour grapes on the part of the speaker.

MarchDub

You don't have to to very far to find people willing to go on the record. Brendan Bradshaw has done some fascinating work and addressed Foster directly and in public at conference.

http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/b/Bradshaw,B/life.htm

Seamus Deane has written frequently about the flaws in Foster's work - see his essay in Revising the Rising published by Field Day.

Specifically there is also much criticism elsewhere of Foster's early reliance on [the Australian Irish] Patrick O'Farrell's work which Foster himself has now admitted to being seriously flawed.

You might also check out

Envoi: Taking Leave Of Roy Foster

http://www.atholbooks.org/extracts/foster_preface.php

Some interesting comments on the cult of personality here and the necessary of having a willing press - the Irish Times is named - to give legs to a historical revisionism that claims to be without bias.