¶ … open for interpretation: it always has been and it always will be. Throughout time, history has been revised and revised again; some perspectives or "takes" on history stick with particular generations only to be revised by the next. The reasons this happen can range from a new theoretical approach to the past that is used to new information uncovered that puts matters in a different light. The changing values of culture can cause historical persons and details to emerge out of the past with a new representative character, with more or less luster, for instance. As societies and civilizations change, so too changes the way in which history is viewed. One may take WW2, for instance. The victors of WW2, the Allies, set about writing a history of the war that favored the side of the victors, that painted them as the "good guys." Yet more recent revisionists have come out with a less flattering portrait of the victors -- one that is viewed as controversial because it does not support the "official" narrative or prop up the mainstream view. But this is but one example. In the medieval world, the Christian perspective dominated the historian's viewpoint. History was read according to light of the Redeemer. In today's world, that light is hardly as popular (unless one's audience happens to be of that same medieval mindset). Historians do consider their audience when they set about describing the persons and places of the past. Like an artist on the stage they do most often attempt to cater to a particular set. Then again there is another kind of historian that goes against the grain, that does not accept what has been handed down by "official" channels and mainstream avenues. Considering that today's world is very much like the Orwellian depiction in 1984, it should not be surprising that revisionist historians should seek to set the past right, to seek to uncover the "truth," so to speak, about what really happened way back when and what it really means for us today.

But then again "truth" is also a controversial matter. Pontius Pilate asked, "Quid est veritas?" ("What is truth?") many years ago, and it is a question that is often repeated even in our own time. There is no consensus. There is differing of opinion as always. There is the balance of the objective and the subjective, but even these are never quite agreed upon by all persons, and so the matter of history becomes for most a very personal affair. After all, it is one's own engagement with the past that is really on the line. How one interprets it for oneself depends upon one's own worldview, one's own suspicions, one's own interpretive bias or tendencies in terms of thought-processes. Whether one judges the liberal reformation of the modern era in a positive light or in a negative light (or in a mixed light) may make all the difference in the world on how one views, for instance, Catherine the Great of Russia.

One's tendency to be sympathetic or to be judgmental, or to become impassioned when one discovers weakness of character on top of aberrations in intellect -- all of this may serve as part of the reason for why different views of historical matters emerge over time. We look through a glass darkly -- darkly because our own eyes are filmed over with years of accumulated opinions, speculations, formative lessons, dispositions, flaws, and feelings. Yet the historian is not to be a judge, and that too can sometimes be forgotten. Instead, it is the historian's duty to record history as it happened. Interpretation, when it occurs, should be as objective as possible -- and that means as truthful as possible. But even here it becomes necessary to unravel what is meant by truth. Even Socrates himself had a hard enough time teaching others what it was he meant when he talked about truth, and so the ancient words of Pontius Pilate continue to ring in our ears today: What is truth? Truth, it might be said, is that which corresponds to reality. Uncovering the reality then is what the historian should aim to do. Some come to the field with a shovel, others with a spade -- neither instrument prevents the other from making pronouncements about the whole of the field, either -- pronouncements that might be best left unmade, if one were to truly be honest in his assessment of the past.

Cristen Congar gives a...

Ultimately, her take is that revisionism occurs when "scholars find inconsistencies or outright fallacies in historical narratives and make the necessary edits" (2). Yet, of course, deciding whether or not Washington was heroic depends, again, on how one judges the word "heroic." It is not just a matter of uncovering "facts" and straightening out the story. One's own sense of what it means to be good, bad, right, wrong comes, inevitably, into the mix. Even if one refrains from all judgment, one is more than likely to leave out some aspect of the story that might color it one way or the other or else throw in too much information so that the forest is missed for the trees. Congar does make one important point, however: revisionism as we know it today did not really get underway until after WW1. What happened at the end of that war, then, that made it necessary for revisionism to begin? That is one question that is certainly worth asking.
Looking back at history, though, we can see how stories have been told and re-told from one era to the next. The history of the Aztecs is a good example. Conquered by the Western world of Christendom, the story of the Aztecs was colored by a worldview that was much different than it is today. Today one is more likely to sympathize with the Aztecs and show some empathy towards them, their culture and their achievements, mainly because there is an academic push in scholarly spheres to promote nativism. This is surely the case in Pohl's essay "Aztecs: A New Perspective" which begins with a depiction of the ritual sacrifice of captives held at the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan. What Pohl does not do is attempt to paint the scene in a manner that is full of condemnation. On the contrary, Pohl seeks first to see the scene from the eyes of the Aztec believer. This is the essence of nativism, and it is what gives this historical account its different character from accounts told in early eras under more Old World regimes (as in the days of Britannia). Pohl, indeed, likens the Aztec ceremony of ritual sacrifice to the Roman triumphs (a stretch of the imagination, perhaps, but his point is understood -- both were expressions of victory). Pohl goes on to describe the beliefs of the Aztecs, demystifying them for modern readers and depicting them with an empathetic approach that is respectful and not condescending.

From there, Pohl describes the people of this civilization and their land and the Aztec capital and how it "was divided into four districts" just like a modern day city (10). Thus, Pohl makes the past recognizable in a way -- he relates the struggles of these peoples to the struggles that any modern reader is likely to be familiar with (impoverishment is one, for example -- most students today cannot afford to attend school because of their poverty and must do so via a loan from the federal government; invasion is another -- for the Aztecs, this was the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors; for today's reader, the invading armies may be "terrorists," Russians, Iranians -- whomever the MSM happens to be painting as the new enemy of the day). In the Old World, the Aztecs would have been described as "savages" by those who made no attempt to understand them or their practices (and they may have even be described as savages by those who did understand them and made that judgment based on their own sense of what they thought it meant to be civilized). For Pohl, the Aztecs were a civilized people -- and his assessment shows in the way he treats his subject, rationalizing their customs (such as their worship of the sun-god) with an earnest desire to have them appear human, with body and soul, like any other human of any other historical era.

Sean Price's essay entitled "How American Slavery Led to the Birth of Liberia" is a piece of revisionism that links slavery in the U.S. to the creation of modern Liberia in Africa. Whites in America (think WASPs) wanted freed slaves out of the U.S. -- so the American Colonization Society purchased land in Liberia and sent these blacks there so they could be back in Africa. Ironically, these blacks took with them the same sense of condescension they had picked up…