What cause the rise of historical revisionism?

Bringing new approaches to history is good. Attempting to view history through a different lens or with different tools is needed to have a better grasp of it. From Ranke to Braudel to now different historiographical approaches enrich our understanding and negate particular longstanding historical biases.

whats bad is taking a Guardian article on Western Civilization seriously.

The rise of Multi-culturalism?

>muh white guilt, muh progressive thinking, muh tolerance, muh feminism.

"re-evaluating our perspective" of history is not the same as altering the facts upon which our perspective ought to be laid

Postmodernism. If you were forced at gunpoint to narrow down postmodernism into a single trope it would be the questioning of narrative, therefore it is incredibly revisionist by nature.

The holocaust. Ever since the holocaust took place, stormweenies have been trying to convince people it was a hoax.

>What cause the rise of historical revisionism?
>Why is it more prevalent in the West than any other parts of the world?
This is dumb no matter what side you're talking about. Historical revisionism is all about political sefl-interest. If it is more prevalent anywhere it's because they have more to gain by supporting different interpretation. There's nothing really supporting the idea 'the west' is home to most people who want to rewrite history.

Political motives and ignorance.

he's not talking about your meme definition of "revisionism" that only american conservatives use

(((Their))) agenda.

Other people in this thread have posted better defences of revisionism than me. Regardless, the definition of revisionism as "university political club pinkos writing editiorials in lefty newspapers that I find objectionable" does not exist outside of the academically disinclined parts of Veeky Forums, and /pol/. Revisionism is a constant in historiography and a largely positive force which improves historiography and understanding. Imagine if academic works of history were stuck at the purely literary standards of Mallory's "Le Morte d'Arthur", or the enlightenment biases of Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to pick two well known examples.

>by Kwame Anthony Appiah

>Why there is no such thing as Chinese civilization by John Chesterfield Smith

youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

indeed

>what is white guilt
>what are the Juden

This

/pol/ will attack the former and verociously defend the latter

I'm /pol/ and I would disagree with that claim about china

So Schliemann finding Troy at a time when literally everyone, even the most educated men teaching at universities were positively certain it was only a myth..was that "revisionism"?

No. new information was found and the academic world adjusted its teachings accordingly.

That's true though. Greeks and Romans would consider us degenerate, pussified barbarians. We have very little in common culture-wise.

What a dumb headline

Of course those values are not unique to western culture. That doesn't mean western culture can't/doesn't embody them.

Article absolutely and utterly disregarded based on that line alone. Well, you could even disregard is based on the title. The author is clearly a bitter ultra-multiculturalist.

Is this gonna be those threads where guys who don't know what a word means butcher it and shift into a completely off tangent often nonsensical term? Then try to debate you on that awkward meaning shift then the actual term in question.

Cause it feels like it.

Thank you.

So tired of this "muh white civilization meme."

Especially out of the mouths of Americans, who live on conquered lands, surrounded by mestizos, and the descendants of their former slaves, engaging in modern consumerist cannibalism, and endless miscegenation, so that what you end up with is millions of quadroons who hang dixie from the back of their Japanese pickup trucks.

And many nation's not considered western actually are.

>is
>ought
hume.jpg

>Kwame Anthony Appiah

OK

>Muh Thermopylae

>Muh Crusades

>Muh Lepanto

>Muh Colonization

>Muh Decolonization

Why not? That's literally revisionism.

>When ‘Western civilization’ is code for white nationalism

thinkprogress.org/when-western-civilization-is-code-white-nationalism-9a8cff6a99a1?gi=768e3cd65f8f

I'm the person who posted that and I'm also a huge /pol/ack.

My point was that it's obvious that the author of the piece is a 1st or 2nd generation immigrant who is writing this as a form of catharsis and that it's equally ridiculous in both cases.

Nice ad hominem. Did you even read the article, you fucking twit?

>There is no such thing as western civilisation

Well there wont be for much longer thats for sure.

>Kwame Anthony Appiah

such persons should be reviled and spit upon

what the fuck kind of name is kwame

Frankfurt school

KGB influence compounding over the better part of a century

Did anyone bother reading the well written article, instead of screaming about the title like tumblerinas?

(((kwame))) wonder whos behind this

>Appiah

Isn't wrong, in the sense that there is no culture that belongs exclusively to the west. You can divide all those cultural values erroneously considered Western among the nations that constitute the West.To say 'the West' is a monolithic entity that has homogeneous values would thus be wholly incorrect. If I know Appiah, of which I've read several articles, that's most likely his intention. Although, admittedly he does lean about too far towards social constructionism, which I absolutely abhor.

Look at the article you posted.
archive.is/KinkK

Obviously he is attacking "western civilization" because it is an edgy thing to do and makes his article popular. What I find odd is that he could be arguing western values are often confused with the socioeconomic changes of industrialization that can happen in any society, that might have convinced even me, instead he goes on a bizarre tirade loaded with fallacies. Just because it is a little ambiguous here and there doesn't mean there is "no such thing", for example...

>Jefferson’s cultural inheritance – Athenian liberty, Anglo-Saxon freedom – did not preserve the United States from creating a slave republic.
Most of the world had slavery for millenia, then a few years after the revolution the north banned slavery and decades later 300000 yankees died to end it in the south. Whatever the reasons it is an exception.

How does Kwame view something like this? He appears to take issue with the facts and wishes to deflect, "aha! but you did have slavery like the rest of us" he says. He doesn't merely want to explain the "great divergence", he wants to downplay it as much as possible like a jealous sports fan trying to snub successful rival. This sort of attitude deeply pervades leftism.

You sound pretty incoherent.