Originally Posted by metalman
On this note I must say I dont hold much with 'revisionist' history either.
I would characterize it more along the line of reviewing and revising history to be politically correct, more acceptable to special interest groups etc etc...NOT more accurate.
Screw all that...just the facts please.
Examples...you probably wont find any history book used in schools teaching about black soldiers who happily, willingly served the confedracy...yet that is true and they existed, entire regiments as I understand. Revisionists remove such items. Also you wont find much teaching of the facts pertaining to the roman catholic church butchering of millions during the dark ages...but that is also true and a fact.
For me give me the facts no matter how ugly, and the Scriptures no matter how convicting of the soul.
while i do agree there are groups that revise history to fit their beliefs and social decorum of the time, for the most part, expecially in higher learning schools, ie universities etc, the books contain such items. For example, it is my understanding our relgion study department has an intire class offered describing the roman catholic church's rise to power, including the dark ages. those revisionists that remove such items do exist, and are usually discredited by those learned in such matters. i spoke of the non biased books that are published when new knowledge with factual basis is published, and perhaps explain a part of the history that was somewhat fuzzy, or skimmed over because of the implications of previous historians, ie the trail of tears did not appear in books intil a great deal of time after, as american historians omitted it as it put america in a bad light, rightfully so.
but on the topic of revisionists that u spoke of, who is to say the compilers of the bible did not do the same? :confused:
Reply With Quote
Live it, it either is true or it isnt.
