Lots of good discussion of the subject, although all 15 years old, at http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html, Bill Beaty's weird science site.

Aside from that, in the non-academic world, "revisionism" has bad connotations. It implies deliberate deception and the rewriting of history for partisan purposes. It generally does not, except in the academic world, imply the correction of biased or incorrect history.

and I would say that it exists within academia also, depending on the context. Gordon Wood's criticism of the work of Gary Nash regarding the American Revolution comes to mind, as well as the continuous arguments among scholars of the English Revolution; criticism of Christopher Hill's writing comes to mind in the latter context.

In any case, I certainly agree with you regarding the emotive power of the term; Lynne Cheney, as former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, went to war against Gary Nash over what she characterized as subversive revisionism in establishing national standards for teaching History.

I'm very interested in fourth century Rome, a poorly documented and controversial period, and have followed the controversies that followed scholars who questioned the consensus view.

Some very brilliant scholars have ruined their careers disagreeing, shall we say.

about the emotive power of the term.

Historiography courses would be a great deal less substantive if the legitimacy of revision weren't accepted as fundamental.

The historiography of the English Civil War is a great example.

The sense I get is that the shift in historiography courses is only within the last 30 years or so, after the Vietnam bitterness became a little less stinging, and now we have post-revisionism and what not.

The field of history is certainly undergoing some new and interesting theoretical changes...

Blame America First, Last and Always, or blame the West First, Last and Always, for everything that has happened in the last 400 years.

Is there ego involved? Yes. But my opinion is some people approach history thought a lens of either / or.

Either you are the Oppressed or the Oppressor, there's no middle ground, and Historical Revisionists seem especially guilty of this.

Higgs is a conservative historian--no reputable critic calls him a socialist, but he's with the Cato Institute, so a little bit of disingenuous victim-posturing is just part of his job requirements. Still, he's misusing the word "revisionist" here. In history, you're supposed to challenge old theories with new facts. That's what Higgs apparently likes to do--not hard, being a conservative in the mostly liberal world of the humanities. He's an iconoclast; but any historian is supposed to cast fresh light on a subject. But "revising", per se, isn't revision. It's only revisionism when you undermine facts. No one should brag about that.

How Holocaust Deniers can can engage in such behavior with a straight face. Since so much evidence was found, so many Jews disappeared, the Nazis liked to keep records on everything, it's like Deniers are living in a parallel universe.

It's called Derrota Mundial...worLd defeat. It was published in pretty cheap paper in 1953 iirc, too lazy to go to the shelf.

It was also published in Spain...most of the usual lies started there.

You might ask why I have it there? My dad bought it, angry and all, when it went on sale...he was a survivor. I toyed with the idea of taking it to the university library. It is a historic artifact actually, even if not in a good way. Oh and pretty penny coud be made on eBay, which is a sad comment.

is the first edition.

I run into this a lot with regards to FDR. Greatest Generation historians him into a god-like figure and hero, when in reality he ran in 1932 as a centrist and he was always opposed to Keynesianism. He was forced to shift to the left because of political activism.

In describing Roosevelt as "Keynesian" because by the nature of their discipline they box complex realities into simple arguments. Roosevelt was Roosevelt, he did not need John Maynard Keynes to tell him what needed to be done.

The expression "history" is a bit like saying "math". It covers alot of different activities.

Much of what passes for historical dialogue is really nothing more than mythology, or parables. Stories intended to pass on a set of cultural concepts, mostly having to do with morality.

Then there is in effect "industrial" history. It is intended to document a period of time, or a particular process (the evolution of the car industry). It is often written with great big blinders on, only making passing reference to events outside of the topic. Its primary purpose is to document in the same manner as an accountant, all the columns and rows have to add up.

There is political history, which has little to do with history at all and mostly has to do with creating "narratives".

Then there is academic history. It tends to be that dry exploration of documentation, oral history, and a touch of anthropology, which has the characteristic of being fairly devoid of judgement.

Of course, then there is the worst, Hollywood history, which is mostly just creative writing with a historical outline for a story.

"Revisionist" history is generally a discussion of political history, with a touch of industrial mixed in on occasion when ones founder has a less than glorious personal life.

So generally the basis is ideological (political) or territorial (academic).

I don't think those terms are useful, because they are already a biased nomenclature in which some theories are accepted and others are not, some theories are authoritative and others are not; whereas I submit that a new theory that is better supported ought be the accepted one. But of course, that is still a matter of opinion.

Let's face it, if you are an angry historian, you are not showing good historical temperament.