ITT- Shit Historical Revisionists Say

> Highly complex society
> The Dark Ages were actually an age of light

> The Civil war was about more than slavery

>when mainstream historicans talk about the dark ages they talk about the entire middle ages

The complaint about "Dark Age" is usually localized to the High Middle Ages (1000-1300), after the Viking scene you depicted.

> implying civil war happened to free southern nogs

>The Normans weren't Vikings

The Civil War was fought for slavery by the Confederacy but was fought by the North to preserve the Union. Only the most staunch New England abolitionists wanted to free the slaves from the outset, Lincoln initially only wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories and let it exist in the states it was in as most people could see in a few generations slavery would die out in the south could it be contained. It was only over the course of the war that Lincoln found that the Union could never be preserved if slavery as an institution be allowed to persist, hence the Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment. In effect the Civil War was about slavery but it is so much more convoluted than that; the Civil War was fought about slavery but not for black people

Is there anyone with half a brain not limited to pop history or blinded by biology who in this current year considers anything past year 1000 to be a part of the dark ages?

And as the south declared independance in the name of preserving slavery, it is a war about slavery

>basically nobody is allowed to read except ecclesiastics
>See all the scientists and philosophers were deeply religious men

> WWI was a war of German agression

For half the combatants, yes. It's like how the Revolutionary War was fought for freedom by Americans but to preserve the British colonies by Britain.

> The american rebels triumphed over the greatest army of their age

> Implying Englands strength wasnt entirely in its navy
> Implying that the french didnt win the war purely to spite england

>Implying the Dutch Spanish and even the Prussians didn't do what they could to spite the Brits

>people are responding to this obvious troll.

I always assumed as a kid dark ages were 500-1000. Is this wrong?

>WE WUZ KANGZ

No it's right, but a lot of normies think everything from 500-1500 is "the dark age".

I have no proffisional qualifications but it seems like the end of the dark ages has beeb pushed all the way back to Charlemange. Which makes sense because of the Carolingian Renaissance. Dark age should refer to lack of written sources, not dissorder caused by Vikings or magyars or any ither groups.

>nobody is allowed to read except ecclesiastics
What a profoundly foolish thing to say

>America won the Vietnam war, they just didn't intervene when the North Vietnamese attacked the south 2 years later.

Literally every historical statement has, at one stage, come from revision of an earlier idea. No idea is born fully formed, revision is a natural process of historical study as new ideas are developed and new sources are unearthed.

Moaning about historical revision is essentially a decleration of disinterest in history particularly as a study and anti-intellectualism in general.

Not OP, but at least colloquially, "historical revisionism" isn't people trying to use historical methods to offer new or at least critical perspectives, it's idiots trying to rewrite popular consciousness in a non-academic manner. They're talking about the holocaust denialists and the lost causers and the "America won Vietnam" crowds.

>Holocaust didn't happen
>Britain started WWII

>European Dark Age
>Literacy never reached a total zero
It was more like a European Dim age
>The European Dim age was everything from the Fall of Rome until Petrarch*
The notion authored by Petrarch himself, mind.
Between Byzantium and the Franks, the West was on its way to recovery by 700 a.D.

Yes it was on its way but it didn't recover untill later.

Has there ever been a dark age if literacy has to be zero for it to be one? If literacy has never existed in the populace or region before it's not really a dark age but a pre historic age, right?

If by recover, you mean become the most impressive group of countries on the face of the Earth, sure, but by the age of Charlemagne, Western Europe was well on par for the age.
You can argue whether or not the Arab Caliphate was greater at this point, but that's not much of a concern when that collapsed less than 200 years later.
The European middle ages are only disappointing because they succeeded Rome, the single greatest Human achievement to exist before modern times, without exaggeration.

Greek Dark Age, muthafucca

Yes but did everyone forget how to read abd write?

> What is Qin, Yuan and Ming Dynasty China

Europe played second fiddle to china from the fall of Rome up until the age of discovery in science, philosophy and prosperity. Only the damage the mongols did in becoming the Yuan dynasty stopped China from eclipsing the west well into the modern era

>the single greatest Human achievement to exist before modern times, without exaggeration

I think you could make a case for Ming dynasty China.

I also think you'd be wrong if you did that, but you could.

> Dark age means noone knew how to read or write

What the hell are you on about? It was a dark age because large cities ceased to exist, the continent fell into general disorder and important engineering and manufacturing technologies were lost to europeans for centuries

>China
China's well and good for its age and continued culture, but its insular nature kept its reach from doing much. Ultimately, it is Rome who built the entire modern world, not China.
As for China's discoveries, they're all very impressive, but, ultimately, it is Europe who used them to impress its mark on the world.
Yes, when literacy began up again, it used an entirely different writing system, and the old one wasn't rediscovered and decrypted until the 20th century

The modern term Dark Age is only used to describe periods of incredibly scarce, or non existent, primary sources.
The old term Dark Ages is now seen as overly misleading and biased against the culture of the Early Middle Ages.

The primary purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was a solution to the problem of what to do with the slaves from captured plantations in the South. That's why the text specifically applies it slaves in rebellious states. Slavery wasn't banned nationwide until the 13th Amendment passed in December 1865, at which point Lincoln was dead and in the ground.

I am not saying dark ages are when everyone forgets how to read, i were asking if such an age has ever been.

How isolationst were the Ming really? Could they have /did they send emisaries west or to western colobies to learn anything there was to learn from them?

Chinas insularity comes mostly from the Ming period, where the return of a properly chinese ruling dynasty made it extremely fashionable to reject foreign influence in any form. It could be compared to a national trauma because of the damage the Mongols inflicted upon the chinese people, and its effects prevented them from adopting new ideas and technologies from the middle east and europe simply because they were foreign

That may have been what it originally meant but now it is the name of a time period in European history. No one gives a fuck about what it originally meant.

>Lincoln was going to ship black people back to Africa

Sure thing buddy, a single gothic cathedral beats everything china ever accomplished

No, you're describing the old meaning. The new meaning is in reference to a period of little record. The only folk calling the Early Middle Ages the Dark Ages are those who get their History from Comic Book Movies and Wikipedia summaries of the Fall of Rome.
China gave up on expansionism at the Battle of Talas.

>China gave up on expansionism at the Battle of Talas.
Not the guy you're responding to, but that's simply wrong. You have expansionist projects like the Song taking over Liao, or you know the Yuan dynasty grabbing everything in sight.

Sorry, I meant Western expansion.

The Yaun dynasty is technically mongol, but they became so chinese-ified that they were recognised as a proper dynasty by the beurocracy, so they might as well have been chinese

>Holocaust happened
>Britain did not start WW2

Slavery was about more than slavery.

I don't even know how anything post-800 could be considered the Dark Ages either, considering the Carolingian and Ottonian Renaissances.

>China was always a unified, homogenous country
>Chinese people are a single united ethnicity with a single common language

Same reason people don't think the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman Empire, when it is. Mainly enlightenment memers who couldn't accept that Enlightenment culture was developed out of Medieval Ideology and method.

The second one isn't really revisionism, just general ignorance

>implying he is wrong

>Christianity predates Judaism

>Only crazed lunatics like Himmler believed in the Aryan Hypothesis

>[historical person x] denounced [theory y] on his deathbed

I have read quite a bit of ACW primary sources and historical analysis and sir, I am proud to say and I will say this is the best short hand synopsis of neccessity of that war and why it was fought. Lots missing, but in a few sentences, yes this is accurate.

>Nazis dindu nuffin, the ww2 was started by Poles who murdered nazillion of German civilians, Hitler was a pacifist

That would just be baiting ... I hope.

It was about state's rights (to have slavery)

>every incarnation of communism, socialism, and the like are the same and have killed 100 million people and ruined every country and Eugene Debs was just waiting to become Pol Pot.

Dark Ages were 5th century - 8th century AD. Calling the High Middle Ages ( 11th - 14th centuries) a part of the Dark Age is inappropriate.

>free some backwater halfway across the world from their overlords to spite a competitor
>within two centuries it has eclipsed all of your empires combined and holds all of you in a stranglehold of defensive and trade treaties
Gotta admit, hindsight is a bitch

>America won the revolution because only Britain was allowed to have allied assistance from Germany as well as loyalists within America, and the only reason they even won because of a French fleet showing up at the last minute to allow an already routed British force to be captured

>Japan didn't serve the atom bomb. America was in the wrong.

>all scientiest and philosophers were deeply religious men
>all
>but the peasants were totally devoid of religious people
>

>No one gives a fuck about what it originally meant.
everyone with functioning brain cells does

*deserve

That still doesn't change the fact that Rome was a high achievement for civilization no matter how you put it. Any age would be lackluster in comparison.

Peasants were superstitious and only had a vague notion of what the religion actually was. It's kind of like today with science.
Most people kind of know what genes are or think they do, but what they actually do is put their faith in the people who supposedly do know, like scientists.

Its amazing how many historical figures do actually have a plethora of contradictory words and actions.

>Holodomor isn't a genocide

Are you not a person? People are constantly considering things in new lights and may see one thing one way one time, and a slightly different one another.
Why would that not reflect in Historical figures?

The claim that learned men were religious because they could read the bible and peasants and laypeople were "superstitious" and ignorant is disingenuous as fuck. Everyone was religious and the few who weren't WERE learned people, which I'm not gonna claim means anything because peasants couldn't record their opinions anyway.

I was being sarcastic.

The Nagasaki bombing killed thousands of Japanese Christians, even more than the Japanese authorities ever did throughout the ages.

How can you be a Christian if you worship the God-Emperor.

By the time of the Conquest,they weren't. No more than the average American is British, German, Dutch, Irish, Italian,Norwegian etc etc.

>Cuba was worse before Castro

Thats not revionism.

>Goatse wasn't the greatest achievement of the human race

>Batista was good and Castro ruined a rich prosperous happy island and killed a million people
Now that's revisionism!

First part is true, and the second too if you consider Castro's support to African mass murderers like Agostinho Neto and Mengistu Haile Mariam.

*revisionism intensifies*
Ordinary Cubans were walled off from the luxurious lives of foreigners living on the island. Those stats are likely inflated by the rich casino areas. That's assuming they're actual statistics and not bullshit from Conservapedia or one of the many anti-Castro misinformation sites out there. There are photos of working class Cuban life during Batista's reign, and it looked not too different from Haiti or other nearby island nations.
>Castro killed a million people
I know he sent troops to Angola for a while, but I've never heard evidence of him offering more than cosmetic support to Mariam. Even with his actions in Africa, his death toll falls far, far, far short of a million.