This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludvikus (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 22 September 2009 (→"Revisionists, get out of Florida": spacing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:45, 22 September 2009 by Ludvikus (talk | contribs) (→"Revisionists, get out of Florida": spacing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | History Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Holocaust denial
See discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism
The two are not to be confused. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
List of notable revisionist historians
This include the following(--Ludvikus (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)):
- *
Harry Elmer Barnes
He probably should be discussed in this article because of his "revisionist" view as to Germany's alleged "war guilt" - for starting WWI. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Revision of DAB page
There is no distinctly American version of historical revisionism -- instead, as the article Historical revisionism makes clear, revisionism is a legitimate process that covers historians in all countries. Also the DAB page needs to cover the subject Historical revisionism (negationism) which includes, but is not limited, to Holocaust denial. There is a long history on the discussion pages of the revisionism articles that shows how this division developed. The new stubb article does a very poor job, at present, in summarizing American historians and revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's present is merely a "stub" - it's not yet an article. I'm no youngster either, and I remember reading, often, the classification of American historians as revisionists. But I never recall reading any study of such classification. I always recall a qualification that such-and-such was a "revisionist." But no explanation was ever given, except that a list was sometimes given of others dubbed "revisionist."
- So if I'm going to develop this "stub," the best I can do is retrieve my sources for the listings.
- I've made some inquiries as to any collective study of "revisionists" - by identifying the Americans I know often classed together under this category.
- But I sincerely doubt that byou can produce one scholarly study which justifies your turning of the expression "historical revisionism" into a well-defined school, or historiographical distinction. Everything I remember in the articles about this classification smells like original research. It's true that McPherson wrote a piece discussing "revisionism." But that does not warrant any more merit than a view of McPherson that all history is revision, or something like that. I don't know of any encyclopedic source beside Misplaced Pages which justifies such a historiographical observation. But I'm not going to touch that article at this point. I'm only interested in writing about these American (not foreign, or international) historians who have been traditionally lumped together as "revisionist." And if there is no study of what they all have in common, so be it. But I certainly do not find that you've established that there's common methodology by which we are warranted to classify historians and thinkers throughout the world as belonging to this family of historians which I've named explicitly in the stub. So please help me develop the stub by making specific recommendations. Sweeping generalizations as to the inadequacy of the stub are nonconstructive and even useless. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Revisionists, get out of Florida"
It's not clear what (brother?) Bush meant in 2006. Apparently there was now a third category of revisionists:
- So we need to write about that in this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Those words appeared in a draft of the bill, not in the final version." --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the opening text of the version as allegedly approved by the governor of Florida:
- "Those words appeared in a draft of the bill, not in the final version." --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- New Florida Legislation on Content of History and Other Classes
- CHAPTER 2006-74
- House Bill No. 7087
- Approved by the Governor June 5, 2006.
- Section 22. Section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
- 1003.42 Required instruction.—
…
- (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the
rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:
- (a) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including
national sovereignty, natural law, self-evident truth, equality of all persons, limited government, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, and how they form it forms the philosophical foundation of our government.
- (b) The history, meaning, significance, and effect of the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States and amendments thereto, with emphasis on each of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights and how the constitution provides the structure of our government.
- (c)(b) The arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government,
as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers.
- (c) The essentials of the United States Constitution and how it provides
the structure of our government.
- (d) Flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute.
- (e) The elements of civil government, including the primary functions of
and interrelationships between the Federal Government, the state, and its counties, municipalities, school districts, and special districts.
- (f) The history of the United States, including the period of discovery,
early colonies, the War for Independence, the Civil War, the expansion of the United States to its present boundaries, the world wars, and the civil rights movement to the present. American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
- (g)(f) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned
annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.
- (h)(g) The history of African Americans, including the history of African
peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society.
- . . .
-
- And here's the source to the complete text of said law: . --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ..."
We should probably also write about this, and not necessarily in this article. :]. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, that's the work (in Florida) of Jeb Bush. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)