Posted by Rich on November 01, 2000 at 09:47:54:
In Reply to: Re: Off & On The Topic posted by Bill R on November 01, 2000 at 07:33:51:
No, Bill, I'll show you what Revisionist history is, with my Crazy Horse example ... soon as I can.
Revisionist history, in my book, is distorting, or selectively using bits of information, to suit a pre-conceived notion. Not letting the facts tell the story & then letting the chips fall where they may. Usually, this occurs due to political & social mores of the day ...
As for the rest, if you re-read my post, I never really said what MY opinion of Columbus' motives or morals were, now did I? As Christina said, all humans have faults. Columbus should be recognized, and is, thankfully, for his achievements. Otherwise, we may as well denounce all of European/African America for their "misdeeds" & give the country up, and go back to Africa & Europe or wherever else we've come from ... I don't see what's so unique about Columbus' behavior ... there is much that's unique in his achievement.
: Oh, another thought. I am finding that the term "Revisionist" history is often applied to theories or new findings that oppose our closely held beliefs about a sequence of historical facts.
: The term is applied more due to a person or group's opposition to the stated "facts" than due to relevence or accuracy of either the "facts" OR the closely held beliefs. I seriously doubt Columbus went abroad in any humanitarian effort and it seems logical to assume he would conduct himself as others from Europe conducted themselves for that time period. To maintain he would not, even if disrupting a desire to hold him up on a pedestal, fits the term "Revisionist" in my book.
: bill r