Historical Revisionism

[bPer]

Egyptian Afrocentrism.

Advocates of this theory claim that the Ancient Egyptians were black equatorial Africans and not the brown Hamitic north Africans we see portrayed in wall art. I’ve even heard it claimed (I forget by whom at the time) that Rameses II was black.

Eh??? The mummy of Ramses II is in a museum in Cairo! Do these people deny that it is his mummy? Surely, a professional examination could determine his race. Maybe even do DNA analysis, although I don't know if that's possible after all this time and the mummification process.

Just my Cdn$0.02 worth.

bPer

 

[Checkmite]

Another type of historical revisionism is the Beautiful People myth. Often see it in association with NewAge ideas about native americans and other primitive societies. You know that thing about only hunting as much as they need, and using every part of the buffalo? It's bull (or at least a part of the bull you don't want to use ) An archeologist friend on another site told about the hunting practice of some tribes. Find a heard of buffalo, start them stampeeding, and direct the stampeed to a nearby cliff. Then go to the bottom of the cliff and have a huge BBQ

The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.

Leckie is quite correct - whenever we come upon a significant archaeological site or region and begin to dig, no matter how early the site is, more often than not there is evidence of warfare. The evidence may not necessarily be as direct as weapons and spearheads, either; one of the most telling indications of hostilities between two tribes or groups of people is if the two are in close enough proximity to make contact probable, yet there is a "no-man's land", an area between the two where no evidence of settlement can be found, and for good reason - that's where the hostile confrontations happened most often. But there was always conflict - if not between two or more tribes, then internecine. It's interesting to note that whenever a civilization developed the written word, the thing that was invariably written about first and most often was not their religion, or their "understanding of the balance of nature", but warfare - boasts of victory and conquest.

 

[kookbreaker]

The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.

What's worse is that this idea is often supported by people who should know better. John Keegan comes to mind.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The Beautiful People myth is one of the scourges of of serious historical study today, even though it is rarely asserted by real historians. The myth tells of a people in complete balance and harmony with the environment and each other, who took only what they needed and gave everything back; a necessary component of this myth is the THEM - the evil intruders who brought disease, war, or some other kind of change and led to the extinction, more or less, of the Beautiful People. Of course, from what we know about history, there never were a Beautiful People, ever.

This is similar to a PBS show I watched on Yosemite some years back. The audience was told about the native americans in the area living "in harmony" with nature.

Some five minutes later in the show they explained that close to a quarter of the tribe starved every winter.

If that's harmony, I can do without it, thanks.

NA

 

[Checkmite]

What's worse is that this idea is often supported by people who should know better. John Keegan comes to mind.

But this brings us full circle - the Beautiful People myth is most often used by people with an agenda. You can tell what the agenda is by whichever THEM led to the "extinction" of the Beautiful People. Of course, proponents of the myth are trying to imply that if we denounced the ways of THEM, and embraced the way things were, we could become the Beautiful People. Keep this consciously in mind next time you hear Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh talk about the "good old days", when there was no crime and everybody was happy - until THEY came - the "Libs", the "Church/State Seperationists", the "Integrationists". Think very carefully...when, really, was that magical golden age when nobody locked their doors at night?

 

[athon]

Australia is plagued with the beautiful people myth.

The popular thought is that the indigenous folk here before 'white man' lived in harmony with the land. Considering the fact that there is evidence of large mammals in Australia about 40,000 years ago - and then (suddenly) they died out - gives evidence to the fact that the first humans in Australia caused the instinction of a great many large mammals.

It don't disagree that their impact was less than ours today - I do however find the propaganda distasteful.

Athon

 

[a_unique_person]

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Who destroys or "eats" the future? Those who have not shared a past: coevolution is the key to survival of all species, maintains Flannery, a senior research scientist in mammalogy at the Australian Museum in Sydney. Just as human immunities have failed when confronted with previously isolated viruses, so entire ecosystems have crumbled with the introduction of man. Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia and New Guinea make for an interesting case study: though once conjoined, they later separated, developing disparate climates and soil types. Equally important, they were colonized at different times, with man reaching Australia 45,000 to 60,000 years ago and New Caledonia just 3500 years ago. Flannery posits that these virgin islands, which were replete with unexploited resources, naive, almost ``tame,'' herbivores and no real competition from other predators, allowed man to make ``the great leap forward'' to become not just one species among many but the species. New virgin territories presented other opportunities for wealth, population growth, leisure and subsequent leaps forward. But the cost is invariably great: human populations soar, then drop as food sources become extinct or soil is exhausted and imported ideas of agriculture, husbandry and hunting slowly give way to environmental reality--reality that is particularly harsh to Australia's poor soil. With great skill and research, Flannery demonstrates the subtle interaction that makes an ecosystem work, from glaciers to fire, from dung beetles to man. In the process he makes a formidable, sometimes frightening argument for careful cooperation with--rather than domination of--the world.

I think he also has the theory that while they older races didn't start off being respectful of nature, they came to when they realised they would die out if they didn't.

One thing in their favour, despite the undoubted hardships of their lives, is that their cultures have survived for such a long time, about 20,000 years in the case of the Australian aboriginals. Something must have been working right.

As for revisionism, there is a big move on in Australia to say that, apart from a few clashes, the white man really didn't have much to do at all with aboriginals dying out to the extent they have. Although many view this as being revisionist, he is widely admired by the conservative politicians and is being treated with a lot of respect.

Finally, politics in the Middle East has a lot to play in revisionism. For example, Palestinians have to apply for a permit to undertake archeological digs, which is usually a very difficult process. Israelis don't have this problem. The aim is to ensure the Palestinians are not allowed to investigate their culture, making them non-people without a history.

 

[athon]

Is that the same guy who got trashed by the traditional historians because he denied that the Tasmanian Aborigines were all killed through genocide?

His arrogance made him somewhat distasteful, but his arguments were worthy of looking at. He basically claimed that there was no evidence that there was systematic slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines, and that most died out because of their susceptibility to western diseases.

Plausible, especially considering that he had documents supporting his view that colonial rule wanted to 'civilize the natives'. Why kill them all anyway?

Athon

 

[a_unique_person]

Is that the same guy who got trashed by the traditional historians because he denied that the Tasmanian Aborigines were all killed through genocide?

His arrogance made him somewhat distasteful, but his arguments were worthy of looking at. He basically claimed that there was no evidence that there was systematic slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines, and that most died out because of their susceptibility to western diseases.

Plausible, especially considering that he had documents supporting his view that colonial rule wanted to 'civilize the natives'. Why kill them all anyway?

Athon

I think he is incredibly naive. Although officially there was no slaughter, in practice, the settlers could do pretty much what they wanted.

They used the aboriinals as virtual slave labour, until there were strikes, so they threw them off their land as the machanised era of farming was arriving anyway.

There is no racism in Australia, but clubs in the country will have a dress code that is designed only to enforce racist entry policies.

You just have to read the stories of the aboriginals themselves. Jimmy Krakour's father, for example. I couldn't finish the book, as it made me too sad. The aboriginals knew who was boss, and just had to accept everything that was done to them. When some wandering aboriginals killed a bull to eat, the police were called and took them away. The comment was that they were not too smart, and that no-one would be surprised if they were never seen again.

Put it this way, it is not official policy to use verbals, deal in drugs or abuse your power to kill people. Cops still do this, though. Not all of them, but it's the ones who do it that cause the problems. You can imagine what it was like years ago when communications and command and control was nothing like it is today.

 

[athon]

I think he is incredibly naive. Although officially there was no slaughter, in practice, the settlers could do pretty much what they wanted.

They used the aboriinals as virtual slave labour, until there were strikes, so they threw them off their land as the machanised era of farming was arriving anyway.

There is no racism in Australia, but clubs in the country will have a dress code that is designed only to enforce racist entry policies.

You just have to read the stories of the aboriginals themselves. Jimmy Krakour's father, for example. I couldn't finish the book, as it made me too sad. The aboriginals knew who was boss, and just had to accept everything that was done to them. When some wandering aboriginals killed a bull to eat, the police were called and took them away. The comment was that they were not too smart, and that no-one would be surprised if they were never seen again.

Put it this way, it is not official policy to use verbals, deal in drugs or abuse your power to kill people. Cops still do this, though. Not all of them, but it's the ones who do it that cause the problems. You can imagine what it was like years ago when communications and command and control was nothing like it is today.

I fully agree.

My father is a house removalist. The state government would purchase old school demountables, ship them out to communities like Cherbourg and convert them into houses, complete with rooms and kitchens and stuff.

The folk out at these communities would rip them apart and use the wood for fires and stuff. You can see why people were outraged.

The thing was, however, most of the Aborigines weren't brought up with the concept of ownership. So they thought the buildings were just there to use as they wanted. In addition, they didn't sleep in their own rooms, or use a kitchen. What did the government expect to happen?

It's different now. Most of the buildings are brick and have one main room with outdoor firepits and stuff. And they have far less problems (excluding alcoholism, which is another story).

The guy was probably a little naive. I don't disagree with the view that colonialists were racist. I just don't see the point of genocide from any practical point of view.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Eh??? The mummy of Ramses II is in a museum in Cairo! Do these people deny that it is his mummy? Surely, a professional examination could determine his race. Maybe even do DNA analysis, although I don't know if that's possible after all this time and the mummification process.

Just my Cdn$0.02 worth.

bPer

I think your avatar is my favorite so far.

I've not really dug enough to state this as fact, but Rameses II's mummy has red hair - and I don't think it's henna. Now, because the mutations for red hair (which doesn't occur enough in the human race IMO - right Interesting Ian) do occur in black populations that in of itself is not enough to reject Rameses being Equitoral African. His mummy and his representations in reliefs do constitute a sufficiently large body of evidence to reject him being "Black African."

With regard to the Aborigene issue, an aside...

Some Creationists (Kent Hovind for example) make the false claim that the Smithsonian Institution has 30,000 Aborigene skulls in it's collection as "proof of evolution." I e-mailed the Smithsonian and have an extensive rebuttal to this claim - though from a source who wishes to remain "non-official."

There's no doubt that Anglo-Australians treated the Aborigenes poorly, but on the whole not a lot worse than they treated other idigenous peoples or indeed as bad as many European civilizations treated their fellow Europeans.

 

[Jon_in_london]

There's no doubt that Anglo-Australians treated the Aborigenes poorly, but on the whole not a lot worse than they treated other idigenous peoples or indeed as bad as many European civilizations treated their fellow Europeans.

Probably the worst example of the genocide of an idigenous people is the of the Bushmen who used to live in South/Southern Africa. Basically they were exterminated like vermin by both european settlers and the Bantu tribes who moved in from the north. They used to live everywhere across an entire subcontinent and are now chiefly confined to the Kalahari desert.

My wife asked me once why they wanted to live in the desert. She was quite shocked when I explained that they didnt want to live there, its the only place that everyone else would let them live.

Theres an insidious form of revisionism going on in South Africa at the moment that basically says that it was solely the white mans fault for exterminating the Bushmen and that the Bantu tribes actually lived in harmony with their bushman brothers until evil Mr. Whiteman came along.

 

[AmateurScientist]

As an aside, I really think historical revisionism is one of those areas that are neglected by skeptics. I realize pointing out what a fake John Edward is, is more fun and Homeopathic claims are more easily analyzed than historical ones, but it is an area that deserves attention.

If people become confused about who we are and where we came from, then it makes them all that much more succeptable to people who claim to speak to the dead or that water has memory.

That's a terrific point, USA. I agree completely.

It is utterly baffling to me how some intelligent persons can say with a straight face that certain events that are well documented with many credible sources and cross references simply didn't happen.

This is reverse skepticism. It is denying a claim in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of it and a complete lack of credible evidence against it.

Perhaps you can persuade Randi to begin a chronicle of significant recent examples of historical revisionism.

AS

 

[rwguinn]

The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

That's one reason. Another is the desire on the part o fthe public for their history to have "good guys" and "bad guys". They don't want to admit that historical figures were human and had complex human motivations and for the most part were neither particularly more heroic or villainous than anyone else.

Another thing (and this is mostly US history, I can't speak for any other country) there are political concerns. Take the Civil war, if you are a textbook publisher and you say that it was started over slavery, you will p**s off certain elements in the south who will say it was about states rights. If you say it was about states rights you will p**s off blacks who will say it is over slavery. If you say it started over a combination of the two you will p**s off both parties. You can't win, so you try to be as vague on the topic as possible.

People read a lot of their own identity in history, which makes it a powerful propaganda tool. This is, in my opinion, the true root cause of historical revisionism.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

People read a lot of their own identity in history, which makes it a powerful propaganda tool. This is, in my opinion, the true root cause of historical revisionism.

Well said.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras. Describing Columbus as a genocide for bringing disease and white men to the new world-in a time when disease was a sign that God or Gods were really angry, or "bad air", or some other cause. Germs? Bacteria? Please! That is one of many problem areas.


Does anyine else get the giggles when the hispanic population of the US gets it drawers in a knot over Spanish Nobility (Don Diego, etc) in the movies/TV being played by a caucasion individual, rather than a Mexican?

If you look at each of the examples I have above, they're all an indightment of 20th Century America (and Western Civ in general). Excellent point. I'm trying to develop this post into an article and I'll inculcate that into my overall premise.

My comment on actors and roles: If Denzel Washington can play Heidetora in a remake of "Ran" and George Tekei can play George Washington in a reprisal of "1776" - which, neither have, but they could - it shouldn't make a $h!t bit of difference what the ethnicity of the actor playing a roll is.

 

[AmateurScientist]

it shouldn't make a $h!t bit of difference what the ethnicity of the actor playing a roll is.

Yeah, any actor playing a roll will likely get dough all over himself anyway.

.....Oh, you meant "role."



AS--just giving you ◊◊◊◊, man

 

[davefoc]

This is an interesting topic and it's difficult to limit myself to just a few words on it.

Beautiful People Myth
I had never heard the term beautiful people myth, but I think it describes very well some popular notions of history. Something like, the native populations were living in a nature oriented, peaceful shangi-la until my terrible ancestors came along and stole their land. Even though it's not the intent of the people pushing this notion, there's a kind of racism inherent in this view because it assumes that the native populations are substantially different in nature than the invading populations.

The Bible As Historical Revisionism
The bible looks like a good example of historical revisionism on steroids.
a. Almost all the "history" of the bible relating to incidents before about 900 BC is completely fabricated.
b. The myths that were put forth were enormously successful propaganda serving to unify and foment numerous rebellions by a population against impossible odds.
c. The biblical myths are believed to be historical by vast numbers of people even today.

Holocaust Deniers
Yes, this is a weird movement, but I have concerns that legitimate questions about the nature of the holocaust get blasted away because of a possible association with the holocaust deniers. One of the things that I have noticed over the years is tht there is almost no discussion of the non-Jews that were killed in the holocaust. As I understand it roughly half the people murdered in concentrations camps were not Jews. Why has history chosen to emphasize the Jewish victims so strongly over the other victims?

Rwguinn's Point
"The biggest cause of historical revisionism (?), IMO, is the application of 20th/21st century motives, standards and knowlege to actions taken in earlier eras." Thought it was a good point so I repeated it. There is a lot that could be said about this but I won't be the one to say it. At least not in this post.

 

[bPer]

I think your avatar is my favorite so far.

Thanks!

I've not really dug enough to state this as fact, but Rameses II's mummy has red hair - and I don't think it's henna. Now, because the mutations for red hair (which doesn't occur enough in the human race IMO - right Interesting Ian) do occur in black populations that in of itself is not enough to reject Rameses being Equitoral African. His mummy and his representations in reliefs do constitute a sufficiently large body of evidence to reject him being "Black African."

I noticed his hair colour too, but put it down to an effect of the mummification or post-mortem aging process. I have no evidence of that, though. Time to do a bit of research ...

BTW, count me in the Red-Headed League, although these days, I wouldn't pass the entrance exam.

bPer