|
In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record, of the orthodox views about a historical event, of the evidence of the event, and of the motivations and decisions of the participant people; as such, historical revisionism is a continual process of developing and refining the writing of history. The revision of the historical record is to reflect the contemporary discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which produce a revised history; however, the scholarly review of history also is misapplied as historical negationism, a form of historical revisionism that presents a re-interpretation of the scholarship of the historical record, which is meant to deny the reality of the historical event in question, and usually contradicts the collective memory of society. ==Historical scholarship== Historical revisionism is the means by which the historical record — the history of a society, as understood in their collective memory — continually integrates new facts and interpretations of the events commonly understood as history; about which the historian James M. McPherson, said that: In the field of historiography, the historian who works within the existing Establishment of society, and who has produced a body of history books, from which he or she can claim Authority, usually benefits from the ''status quo''. As such, the professional-historian paradigm is manifested as a denunciative stance towards any form of historical revisionism — either of fact or interpretation, or both. In contrast to the single-paradigm form of writing history, the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, said that, in contrast to the quantifiable hard sciences, characterized by a single paradigm, the social sciences are characterized by several paradigms that derive from a “tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over () fundamentals” of research. About resistance against the works of revised history that present a culturally comprehensive historical narrative of the U.S. — the perspectives of Black people, women, and the labour movement — the historian David Williams said: After the Second World War, the study and production of history in the U.S. was expanded by the G.I. Bill, which funding allowed “a new and more broadly-based generation of scholars” with perspectives and interpretations drawn from the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the American Indian Movement.〔Williams p. 11〕 That expansion and deepening of the pool of historians voided the existence of a definitive and universally accepted history, therefore, the revisionist historian presents the national public with a history that has been corrected and augmented with new facts, evidence, and interpretations of the historical record. In ''The Cycles of American History'' (1986), in contrasting and comparing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Russo–American Cold War (1945–91), the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said: Revisionist historians contest the mainstream or traditional view of historical events, they raise views at odds with traditionalists, which must be freshly judged. Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo. In the friction between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, solidified, or clarified. If over a period of time the revisionist ideas become the new establishment ''status quo'' a paradigm shift is said to have occurred. Historian Forrest McDonald is often critical of the turn that revisionism has taken but he nevertheless admits that the turmoil of the 1960s in the United States changed the way history was written. He wrote: Historians are influenced by the ''zeitgeist'' (Spirit of the Time), and the usually progressive changes to society, politics, and culture, which occurred after the Second World War (1939–45); in ''The Future of the Past'' (1989), the historian C. Vann Woodward said that: Developments in the academy, culture, and politics shaped the contemporary model of writing history — the accepted paradigm of historiography; the philosopher Karl Popper said that “each generation has its own troubles and problems, and, therefore, its own interests and its own point of view”, and that: As the social, political, and cultural influences change a society, most historians revise and update their explanation of historical events. The old consensus, based upon limited evidence, might no longer be considered historically valid in explaining the particulars — of cause and effect, of motivation and self-interest — that tell ''How?'' and ''Why?'' the past occurred as it occurred; therefore, the historical revisionism of the factual record is revised to concord with the contemporary understanding of history. As such, in 1986, the historian John Hope Franklin described four stages in the historiography of the African experience of life in the U.S., which were based upon different models of historical consensus.〔African-American History: Origins, Development, and Current State of the Field | Joe W. Trotter | Organization of American Historians Magazine of History〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「historical revisionism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|