No video :(

Historical Orthodoxy, Revisionism, and Post-Revisionism

Подписаться 297 тыс.

Просмотров 62 тыс.

50% 1

In recent historiography, it's been easier and easier to classify all scholarship into three camps: Orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist. This is the result of the biggest change that happened in the History profession throughout the last century, and it has significantly affected everyone in the Western world. This is going to be super-meta - so understand, I cannot get into specific historical theories, just illustrate the huge change that has happened in history.
------------------------------------------------------------
more videos:
previous:
• The Philippine Insurre...
related:
• The Frontier Thesis - ...
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
www.youtube.com...
contribute to my Patreon:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
/ cynicalcypher88
/ cynical_history
------------------------------------------------------------
wiki:
In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people. The revision of the historical record reflects the new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which produce a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments about heroes and villains.
At a basic level, historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of history. Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, which the heroes, good guys, or positive forces are depicted as villains, bad guys, or negative forces. This revisionism is quickly challenged by the supporters of the old view, often in heated terms. It becomes historical negationism, a form of historical revisionism that presents a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record. The term "revisionism" is used pejoratively by people who charge that revisionists are deliberately distorting the true historical record.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #historiography #revisionism #orthodoxy #NewLeft #PostRevisionism #historians #history

Опубликовано:

22 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 206

@anonymousanonymous7250 7 лет назад

"Understand, but do not judge." Unless, of course, you're referring to Woodrow Wilson.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

too true, heh heh

@gnetkuji 7 лет назад

Or, you know, to the history of Orthodox, Revisionist, and Post-Revisionist Historiography.

@plasmapoweredsabby 4 года назад

WILLLLLSONNNNNN

@gjheintzman 4 года назад

He's not producing a textbook. If he does, and then mentions what a dick Woody was then it would be applicable.

@The_New_IKB 4 года назад

Or socialists/commies/fascists/nazis (they are all basically the same, only who is the out group changes)

@dstinnettmusic 4 года назад

Orthodox history is valuing your weight on your side of the scale. Revisionism is realizing that maybe the other side of the scale should have some of the tokens that have been placed on your side Post-revisionism is realizing that the study of history is about the wholistic state of the scale itself.

@maxrobison223 6 лет назад

...wait a minute, is this the Hegelian dialectic in action?

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

pretty much

@historian79 4 года назад

I usually watch RU-vid on my AppleTV but I came here to post this comment. Clearly I wasn’t the only one thinking this.

@SunflowerSocialist 7 лет назад

It's basically this, Orthodoxy is laudatory, Revisionism is critical and Post-revisionism seeks impartiality. As a political science/history double major I often find myself going between revisionism and post revisionism. I find revisionism is more useful in developing interdisciplinary aspects of history, but I also seek facts first. In order to do this I use a historical model, often having to adapt it to facts which contradict the models assumptions. I like the revisionist model, but often you need to seek facts in the post revisionist way,

@Stopitpls 4 года назад

Lad, watched this like four times and still didn't get it until I saw this comment.

@TheJTcreate 4 года назад

The problem with Revisionism is that it is just as guilty of Texas Sharpshooting history as Orthodoxy. Anytime you write with a theme or narrative throughout your research, you are guilty of practicing selective history. The first thing to remember is that History is very messy. So you take both practices, strip them down to the facts and put them together. What you have is a start of understanding what History is. You then fill in the holes by reading the Historians who specialize in a piece of history. You won't get the whole story following "jack of all trades" historians.

@idigamstudios7463 2 года назад

I would argue that's the best place to be in an established power. Orthodoxy is far more necessary in an up and coming power. Revisionism would likely undermine an attempt at political unity, while Post-Revisionism wouldn't provide a strong enough foundation, Orthodoxy provides that unity. Personally as someone who considers himself a pragmatist who wants what works first and foremost I would identify as post revisionist, though if I was doing consulting work for the ECOWAS bloc I would probably advise an ECOWAS slanted orthodox viewpoint.

@golgarisoul 7 лет назад

Nuance and ambiguity don't catch the average persons attention like clear cut narratives. It's sad.

@erinoriordan9808 6 лет назад

From an evolutionary biology perspective, it probably served our ancestors well to be able to quickly judge food/not food, enemy/not enemy, potential mate/not potential mate, etc. In a modern urban/industrial society where we regularly interact with cultures from around the globe, it becomes problematic.

@castor3020 6 лет назад

Well yes but through post-revisionism we can make more truthful narratives. After all history telling will always need simplifying and cutting of corners for short lessons.

@MichaelCollins1922 7 лет назад

I miss the History Channel of the 90's.

@BJN1253 4 года назад

Me too

@TahtahmesDiary 4 года назад

They were still pretty biased and only ever offered basic information from a highly Patriotic (versus a neutral Historical) view. I don't think the History Channel was ever much more than mediocre journalism, but I agree even that was better than Ancient Aliens and reality shows!

@BradyPostma 4 года назад

I never had cable until the History Channel was already degraded pretty badly. I miss nothing.

@haroldlawson8771 3 года назад

Pawn stars is good though I give the current history channel that

@nikolademitri731 3 года назад

@@haroldlawson8771 lol.. “good” is definitely up for debate, and of course subjective, but I do think it’s quite *entertaining,* and of course enough people agreed to make it the big success that it was/is. Granted, it doesn’t bring much history to the table, and where it does it’s often biased, but aside from that it’s just completely constructed to entertain, and not at all “reality” tv (though no reality show really is). From the family, and Chummly, to the items selected, the people who interact, and even basic conversations: it’s almost 100% scripted. That doesn’t really matter if you just look at it as entertainment, and not much more (as I do), but I know people who stopped watching, bc they were offended at what they perceived a “lack of authenticity”, when they found out how scripted and TV made the family/interactions are.

@chrisbarber2436 7 лет назад

I would argue that, rather than "do not judge", we should judge more-so; however, that judgement should only come after an understanding has been established. If we are to view history as the story of us, as the story of humanity as a whole, then we should be incredibly judgmental, in the same way we would judge ourselves a decade (or many decades) ago. Who among us would not look on our past self with a sense of "if only you knew"? At the same time, we must be cautious: we cannot hold men and women of the 17th Century to the same standards we have today, for obvious reasons. But that does not mean we cannot judge them; it merely means we cannot condemn them.

@Ray_Mac 3 года назад

I agree; it's important to judge our pasts so we can learn, grow, and improve our society & world

@CtrlAltSHIT 3 года назад

Assuming I am taking the standpoint of a historian or scientist or any other academic field. The point isn't to judge, but to find. Once found we can sort out what to do. We want to assure our evidence is accurate before rendering judgement however if the sources for information themselves contain judgements we too will be colored by those judgements. the history book should be separate from the book of judgement. At least I think that is what the video is trying to get at. I'm not sure I wholly agree with the video either, something seems wrong, missing, but I don't expect a lecture on how electrons work to contain judgements about how I live so why do I expect my history book to? this is the question I am currently grappling with.

@Will-tn8kq 2 года назад

Agreed. Understanding should be goal #1. It is by far the most important goal. And I don't think we should ever worked up into a righteous fury over history, too much emotion and anger infused into history leads ro bias and mistakes. But! I don't think "never judge" is a reasonable standard either. I don't think that can be done.

@radbond1 Год назад

There's no judge in judgment.

@ThekaiserXD 8 лет назад

One of your best videos to date. Very enlightening and made me think about HOW history is researched and portrayed not just what taught and recorded.

@TheChoujinVirus 4 года назад

well duh, here's one example. In Hungary, Atilla the Hun is viewed as a folk hero and great founder of the Hungarian country and people Outside of Hungary, he and the Huns were portrayed as marauding barbarians that slaughtered villages

@cv4809 2 года назад

Both narratives are true

@Will-tn8kq 2 года назад

The only problem comes if people disagree on events. If one side said Attila burned their village down and another says he never did that, then we have a problem. But if you just have one group who celebrates a guys achievements, and another who says those same achievements make him a monster, history has no problem with that. They can both be true as far as history is concerned.

@jamesgeorge7579 7 лет назад

This reminds me a lot of how history was taught to me in school. In Elementary School, we learned the orthodox way, america is awesome, apple pie and freedom, all problems have been solved. Then in Middle School it was revisionism, how war is all about murder and rape, all your heroes were racists and/or slavers, and you should feel ashamed if you're a white male. Then High School was post-revisionism, exploring multiple povs, how there are no good or bad guys and everyone has at least some justification for their actions, except for Hitler, fuck that guy.

@abelardoplatas1549 4 года назад

Lucky bastard, I didn't even know the Trail of Tears happened until my senior year of high school. 😡

@minutemansam1214 2 года назад

@@abelardoplatas1549 I learned about the Trail of Tears in elementary school.

@erltyriss6820 8 лет назад

I was definitely following your argument and its points on the methodology, but your use of the Cold War example shows why both sides really have to be careful when you get down to particulars. The Soviet Union on the diplomatic front may have merit in claiming equal blame for the Western Allies as much as the Soviets, but on matters of humanitarian issues, the two do not seem equatable. I have meet very few Eastern Europeans that would think their nations relationship with their Cold War Patron was anything like the Western Europeans relationship with the USA. The Eastern Europeans really did face a 50 year nightmare thanks to the Soviets and the various national communist parties. I do love your touch upon the negationism; revisionism gone wrong. My own personal bias is toward the orthodox camp, but your covering of each positions strength and weakness was definitely interesting and insightful.

@bbbushhh 8 лет назад

...good point....but don't you feel that the Russian harshness visited on their client states (many of whom fought actively against them during the war) was virtually inevitable considering the drubbing their population took during WW2?

@erejnion 7 лет назад

If it really was a nightmare, it wouldn't last 50 years. East Europe was poorer and less free, but the average man met much less problems than The Unbearable Lightness of Being for example would have you believe. Besides, humanitarian issues do not factor as a cause of the Cold War. Either way, I can at least say that in Eastern Europe communistic rhetoric like "we must fix the wage gap" is not present at the moment. Which means people show some ability to learn... but, judging by Western Europe, they can learn only from their own experiences.

@gnetkuji 7 лет назад

Oh yes, it was such a huge nightmare unrivaled by anything in the West. I mean, after all, it's not the the West has mass incarceration, a deeply flawed, corrupt, and unresponsive government, or poverty. I mean, unlike the East, there is no such thing as homelessness in the US, and completely unlike the East, there isn't, and has never been, any racial issues where a minority race is systemically segregated, oppressed, and often lynched. Then to top it all off, the East had a huge and invasive spying program which watched and documented their every move, which is something that could *never* happen to us! In case you didn't pick it up, literally everything the US tells you about the USSR is a lie, either outright or by exaggeration, and everything the US accuses the USSR of having done, the US either did, or is currently doing, and bigger.

@chrisforsyth8323 7 лет назад

Its okay. They got East Germany to pay for it.

@celinak5062 6 лет назад

gnet kuji 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2. Create a gulag 3. Develop a thug caste 4. Set up an internal surveillance system 5. Harass citizens' groups 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7. Target key individuals 8. Control the press 9. Dissent equals treason 10. Suspend the rule of law

@anonymousanonymous7250 8 лет назад

I'm a post-revisionist myself, but everyone I know is a revisionist, especially when it comes to the historical of civil rights in the United States. Sometimes it drives me nuts. As a result, I fell like an Orthodox sometimes. I feel like revisionists want Americans, in particular White Americans, to punch themselves in the gut over the US's long-standing problem of systemic racism. Do you ever feel like this?

@CynicalHistorian 8 лет назад

I always tell people that I feel like a liberal among conservatives and a conservative among liberals. Especially among my cohort when I was getting my MA, and the professors (just graduated last week), it often feels like they misunderstand my arguments as politically inclined, when I am more concerned over establishing the nuances of overall discussion, rather than one discrete interpretation over another.

@anonymousanonymous7250 8 лет назад

Cynical Historian OMG That is EXACTLY how I feel too! I grow up in the most liberal of towns, in the most liberal of time periods, have the most liberal of friends, and yet I am not the most liberal of persons. Now don't get me wrong, I am very liberal. Yet the liberals I surround myself with are revisionists. It feels like the entire millennial generation is revisionist. Do you feel isolated amongst people in your generation because you're post-revisionist and everyone else is revisonist?

@CynicalHistorian 8 лет назад

Being a cynic, I relish being the contrarian and upsetting people of my generation. I grew up in a mixed setting politically, so I might be more reflective of that. Still, people are polarized to one side of the spectrum or the other, especially when it comes to how they view history, which inevitably informs all of their politics - whereas my historical outlook is rather alienating to such considerations.

@anonymousanonymous7250 8 лет назад

Cynical Historian Mine too. And yet it seems that the revisionists want to be the ones who control the history books. Yet they, like the orthodox, have a political narrative. America will go from "'Murica Is Awesome" to "America is racist." What about "America is America?"

@fuzzydunlop7928 7 лет назад

So it's both? Meaning they're both correct. So how do you get them to accept that they're both speaking elements of truth? Have them focus on what's true? That's not fun to most people, most people find the truth tedious.

@SPDYellow 6 лет назад

Interesting, but the problem is there really isn't a way to write or talk about history that is completely unbiased. I have my issues with Howard Zinn, but I do have to agree with something he said. When he was asked about bias, he said that he wasn't afraid of being biased because there's no way to write about history that's completely unbiased; even if you choose to list only facts, the mere act of choosing which facts to leave in and which to leave out, is, in itself, an act of bias. Of the stuff mentioned, I find Historical Orthodoxy to be the worst. In focusing solely on all the good of our country, in making the people of the past, shining exemplifiers of human beings, not only are people misinformed as a result, but this story is boring. An accurate depiction of our leaders and people of the past, showing their warts and all, is a way more compelling story and it demonstrates that all the cynical deal-making, politicking, and back-biting involved with modern politics, is absolutely nothing new. It forces them to have to examine the words of politicians more carefully, realize that when they are speaking to different audiences, they may change their message as needed, and that they need to back up and take an overall look at the pattern to know what Politician X is generally in favor of. Also, it robs history of any heroes. If we talk about historical figures as godlike beings, the people of today can't learn anything from them, can't draw any inspiration from their actions, or be like, "Maybe I can do what So-and-So did."

@castor3020 6 лет назад

Of course we cant do it perfectly, nothing we do is perfect, the goal in post-revisionist History is to acknowledge your bias, try to work past it and/or inform the reader of your bias so they can think for themselves what parts might be untrue. Get as close to perfection as possible.

@JMM33RanMA 6 лет назад

One of the fathers of modern, or scientific history was Leopold von Ranke, who said that history should be "Wie es eigentlich gewesen war." [As it really was rather than to serve a purpose.] Unfortunately he sold out his principles and went to work making propaganda for the German Empire. One of the main corruptors of history has been and still is political and religious doctrine as they put their ideology ahead of facts. Purveyors of faked "Biblical History" are now being exposed. Their method was to find something in the Bible and assign sites to it, as opposed to analyzing the sites to find out what they really were. Now that the dam has broken, there is a flood of scientific archaeology showing what they did and how they ignored or distorted evidence for ideological reasons. In my historiography class, we read and compared Northern and Southern histories of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era. Northern propaganda that the war was all about freeing the slaves stands up better than Southern propaganda that it was about "states' rights" and not about keeping slavery [a barefaced lie considering that the bills of secession stated openly that it was to keep slavery].

@ALHat22 5 лет назад

Hmmm Zinn Logic seems a little flawed. What of those that wrote the fact’s bias? Who says that he has to write a list of all historical facts alone leaving nothing out even new discoveries or revisions about the past? IF All is bias and nothing is unbiased than by his account history never can or will exist because bias exists. In which case there are no facts about the past that have been written down that are not unbiased therefore they are all untrue and thus history is untrue because those that wrote down the history or were apart of history to begin with were all biased in their selection of facts. What this means is space Aliens created the universe yesterday. Mic Drop

@itisakubrow6361 4 года назад

@@ALHat22 hmmm P H Logic seems a little flawed. Why does understanding which way a bias trends affect its existence? If we wanted to talk about all of history from the beginning to the end then your strategy of just putting everything in might work but as soon as we have to start narrowing things down to, say, a time period, we're choosing which time periods are relevant, what in it is relevant. Heres an example, if we wanted to write about the US during the Vietnam war, we have to have a bias towards the relevancy of the Vietnam War and whether we wanted to write more or less about North Vietnam, South Vietnam, The US, China, France would be a bias. The solution of just put everything in also doesn't work not only because it's impractical but because you're saying that those are relevant pieces of information to put in that they matter & that they affect the story.

@Jaqen-HGhar 4 года назад

yeah it seems like the maker of this video needs to look up the argument to moderation fallacy.

@PongoXBongo 8 лет назад

Post-Revisionism: History as it was, not as we wish it to be.

@kevinclass2010 4 года назад

Seems like finally someone chastised Herodotus.

@nathantripathy 2 года назад

Two thoughts from this video: 1. I find it interesting how the Revisionists are now becoming the orthodox and we can now see some Marxists telling history of their nations as a grand narrative. 2. Also, it's fascinating how public intellectuals 50+ years ago espoused an Orthodoxy informed view and then how today the most popular lefty public intellectuals are strongly revisionist and pushback on nuance informed takes. 3. Thank you, as an amateur historian I tend to find orthodox historians (Gibbon) frustratingly unhelpful. I tend to find revisionist history (Marxist, New Left, Feminist, etc.) to be strongly reactive against the establishment and only minimally helpful. I am POST-REVISIONIST.

@andrewpaddock7560 3 года назад

I see what you mean about the uneasiness of the post-revisionist stance. It is hard to neutral all the time. Howard Zinn said, " You can't be neutral on a moving train." Neutrality can also be something of a luxury depending on where you stand. I can easily see such historicity becoming comfortably centrist, and I've long had a beef with centrism as I've more often experienced it as being employed by people without any skin in the game who also don't want the baggage of actually planting their flag. We all have opinions and take sides, and trying to pretend you don't and aren't is just rubbish. This balancing act really must be walking on a razor's edge.

@Berzerk-cr2cy 3 года назад

You can come to revisionist outcomes with post revisionism though. I’m sure every revisionist would have classified themselves in your camp, it’s all well and good to see yourself as this brave purely objective truth finder but it’s questionable whether most people are.

@tjadams8 2 года назад

This channel is a good example of showing how hard it is to truly be objective.. "I'd like to think of myself in this camp but its hard not to render judgment though." Trust me, we can tell. & I think he tries really hard..

@Will-tn8kq 2 года назад

This was great. Maybe we should understand FIRST, then judge? I feel like never judging is impossible, maybe we should just train ourselves to withhold judgment while we seek to understand, and only tentatively judge once we think we have a grasp of an event.

@fuzzydunlop7928 7 лет назад

I love the hell out of this video. Post-Revisionism seems like attacking the colossal topic of History with the mindset of a Detective. (or at least, how a detective SHOULD go about their profession.)

@leohochhauser 5 лет назад

Switch complex background music from composers like JS Bach to simple and easy spa music, and furthermore you may want to reduce the volume so the listener may concentrate on the spoken word. That is if you need music at all. I tend to switch off videos where the speaker has to compete with the music playing in the background. Can't remember any university lectures in Germany, Canada and the United States that were augmented with music in the background.

@natealexander5251 3 года назад

This video means more today than it did 4 years ago

@Cabral_del_Norte 4 года назад

I am a historian, but I am working to be more like a post-revisionist than a revisionist in my work.

@literallyme2071 4 года назад

Historical Orthodoxy = The past is great Revisionism = The past is bad Post-Revisionism = The past is the past

@GrubStLodger 6 лет назад

Being a keen history reader (though more a literature beast than a historian) I really like these historiography videos most because they prod and ask questions about the history I read. So, thanks for that.

@MrTrialofK 8 лет назад

I had never heard of post revisionism but I really appreciate your video.

@blondbraid7986 5 лет назад

I think the movie Rashomon best illustrates what studying history is like, where every character in the movie retell the same event yet all give their own version on what really happened.

@curiousworld7912 3 года назад

Watching this video again in the Summer of 2021, it seems even more relevant. The battles over Critical Race Theory comes to mind... It seems to me, those trying very hard to uphold the orthodox method of looking at our history would far rather hear and teach 'pretty stories' than to try and be objective - they confuse 'patriotism' and 'nationalism', and there is a difference. I think the Post-Revisionists have it as close to being correct as is possible - yes, there are aspects and persons in our history that were clearly right or wrong, but one should take all this into historical perspective. The whole point in learning history is to try and progress - to be better; not simply to stand still, or even worse - try to go back in time to some mythical 'glorious past'.

@tas050701 7 лет назад

I find myself falling within Post-Revisionism, with Revisionist leanings like Historical Materialism and other interesting ways of looking at History. This makes me ask as to what are your thoughts on Historical Materialism and far left ideals of history?

@daealexander4189 3 года назад

"how PETTY" *shows picture of tom petty* quality content

@33orion77 5 лет назад

About historical orthodoxy, I would argue through history, historians rarely had free reign and were not there to relate factual history but were often looking to embelish their employers ( noble, rich individual, king and so on). Because the orthodox history is pratically bias by definition revisionism is inevitable but what's make revisionism and post-revisionism possible is new or previously unavailable informations. Throught the 20th century up to now with the internet communications are much more efficients and information is way more accessible. I think that the availlability of information is what led to all thoses different schoold of thoughts

@Mo-sk7xo 2 года назад

"Historians has to stop being so judgmental" *Mentions Woodrow Wilson* "HE'S DEMON SPAWN"

@michaelkilbride6420 Год назад

A bet every fan of this show must remember that one person who read A People’s History of the United States, and, took the text as if were gospel. Not that it doesn’t raise good points, it’s the dogmatic adherence to it, usually a high school senior, or, college freshman

@DeodorantDan 8 лет назад

Please do the Clean Wehrmacht.

@lafther210 7 лет назад

I guess I never really thought of myself as being formed in the Post-Revisionist camp. History is to understand why events happened after all.

@kevinmclaughlin6778 2 года назад

glad we all got this behind us 6 years later.....

@tenzinbhutia766 3 года назад

can someone please tell me the names of a few post revisionist books on US history???

@FangAzi 6 лет назад

A bit late, but post revisionism can be described as those following Nietzsche idea behind skepticism, as Nietzsche said: "The Snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well as the minds which are prevented from changing their opinion; they cease to be minds." In other words, they dont see nor good or evil in history, but just truth as if history was a science, which at the end of the day is. However on the other side of the spectrum, one could also argue that post-revisionists' objectivity is what allows currents such as Holocaust negationism or the rise of both far right and far left to rise. As their issue is the same as Nietzsche feared with his skepticism, which was the rise of nihilism: as everything can be argued for and against, arguieing ends up being pointless and meaningless... And those evil nor good exists. I personally argue that such idea is very flawed as one could take Nazism or Communism, for the sake of the example, and argue in favour of them despite their drawbacks, drawbacjs that have changed our societies for good...

@castor3020 6 лет назад

But we are not talking about philosophy, we are talking about history which has to be shown to be faced on facts, not ideas that "sound good". Any one can use anything in a fashion that is wrong or corrupted, doesnt mean such a tool is useful or best that we have.

@TheZombieFellow 6 лет назад

Great video! As a novice, I really felt liked i learned something :)

@chrisforsyth8323 7 лет назад

Excellent.

@JMM33RanMA 6 лет назад

Very interesting! Keep up the good work.

@ecurewitz 3 года назад

persoanlly, I find myself closest to post revisionism, trying to get the full meaning, but sometimes judgement is necessary

@Imperiused 7 лет назад

5:23 Oh gawd I remember that documentary. Sooooo bad.

@gracezaky1192 Год назад

interesting, in ib history we learned there's a fourth camp, realpolitik. ideology is just used as a tool to gain markets and economic influence.

@superkang7448 7 лет назад

Really excellent channel dude. I don't always agree but that's entirely normal given the nature of history. Please keep it up!

@Gremictoo 4 года назад

Thank you so much for helping me understand this

@sammosaurusrex Год назад

I like your take that Post-Revisionism is a synthesis of Orthodoxy and Revisionism - very dialectical Also I saw that CCR "Someday Never Comes" reference

@dpg227 Год назад

I thought of that thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing, too; but then realized that Cipher said Post-Revisionism is not a synthesis of Orthodoxy and Revisionism, but a more nuanced approach that exposes enough ambiguity to dissuade us from backing either camp.

@tcofield1967 6 лет назад

I'm late to the discussion but one thing that isn't discussed is the inherent bias that all historians bring to their scholarship. The what is always the easy part but the why is where the scholarship gets a little more sticky. A good example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on your line of thought this was either fully justified as the result of Japanese aggression and continued resistance in the face of obvious defeat, a war crime against helpless Asians due to racism and the desire for punishment, or a case of misunderstanding of what Japanese intentions were in August of 1945. I've heard all three and the 'truth' IMHO is probably somewhere within all three lines of thought. This same thing could be used to explain the Civil War, US Expansion, the triggers that led to Naziism in Germany or Communism in Eastern Europe. I tend to read things from all sides of the spectrum and then try to look for the truth in what all are saying. I have found that there are some truths in every position and that people that only look at the orthodox, revisionist or even post revisionist can overlook valid truths.

@TheMaskhadov 8 лет назад

I feel that maybe your point comes more from an American point because way before this point people were starting to question the narrative. But to a certain degree the information available to the historians was lesser than ours. Bigger gaps in knowledge leads to greater ability to interpret. Many of our ideas of Rome have changed not to mention the fact that in Europe our Empires came to an end and Imperial propaganda is obviously less around now. Also in terms of what a historian is is much different from now. In fact the Orthodoxy were much like the revisionist in that they created a false narrative or were only talking about a historical setting for the pleasure of the present. I.e. the Enlightenment guys studying Rome and Greece and getting what they wanted but disregarding the realities of those nation states they were gloriously writing about but then you have British historians talking about how great an Empire it was and the merits of its empire based on their own. History i think has changed in the modern period but there are still popular historians some better than others. Tom Holland is good but he always crafts a narrative through his history and pulls you back constantly so his claudius book took the story of the wolf and then kept refering back to build a narrative that Romans seen themselves as wolf like which is true but then can take away from history. Then you have Adrian Goldsworthy who I think is a proper historian but again he writes accessible books his are brilliant. Then you have figures like Bill O'Reilly i have never read his books I'll surmise though these are political books with heavy bias. These popular historians sometimes can be a good intro but real historians tend to write dry books so I would imagine most real historians would be Post revision or unbiased but then I always feel myself that when reading history no matter how dry you tend to root for the people you are reading about in most circumstances.

@Le_Samourai 6 лет назад

Good video! We talked about this in my social studies class, but not quite in the same way. We also didn't discuss post-revisionism

@williamandrews6541 4 года назад

I have my bachelor's degree in history and started my masters, but had to stop for a bit for personally reasons. I'm hoping to get back into graduate school soon. I love this video so much. My favorite professors were post-revisionists and my least favorite professors were revisionists. I don't think I had any orthodox professors, but I imagine I wouldn't have liked them very much either. My emphasis was Jewish history and in one of my classes, it was actually our goal to understand the German side of world war two (not necessarily agree with it, just understand it). It was the most eye opening class I've ever taken and totally moved me into the post-revisionist camp.

@gnetkuji 7 лет назад

Funny how you describe Post-Revisionism making it sound like it's objective and never taking sides, but then you show that you've already taken a side. The Post-Revisionist side. You're literally presenting Post-Revisionism from a non-Post-Revisionist perspective. You've already judged it to be correct and the others to be wrong and that colors how you present it to us. More importantly, your idea of presentation without judgement is basically impossible. There is always subjectivity there. Even "just show facts and let the reader decide" involves your own subjective interpretation on what is important enough to list as a relevant fact. You're not a Post-Revisionist by your own definition. You're just a Revisionist who rejects left-leaning politics in search of a "center" which is inoffensive, or equally offensive, to both sides of the previous debate.

@castor3020 6 лет назад

Oh man your head is so far up your ass, straight up judging him for choosing not your perspective. He just chose to be impartial with history, deal with it. And as to "presentation without judgement", D'UH! Nothing we do is perfect, the point is to TRY to be perfect and warn others of your bias when it is in play. Historians dont need to fake being infallible, atleast post-revisionists dont.

@anon8724 5 лет назад

How do I deal with the nuances surrounding Post-revisionism trade of thought? Are there any post-revisionists in particular I should be mindful for or ones that you have a general agreement

@CynicalHistorian 5 лет назад

I don't know a post-revisionist textbook thus far, and there may never be, since nuance and ambiguity kinda destroys the idea of a national story. So post-revisionists tend to historians engaging in more theoretically dense work since the late 1990s. Plus, there really aren't any historians I am in complete agreement with. We'd have nothing to talk about otherwise

@althesilly 6 лет назад

The only truth I know is that the pendulum swings and does not end. And never think that the pendulum did not start with your problem with the way the pendulum springs. To this, I would ask y'all a question how will post-revisionism go too far? Where will the virtues of the post-revisionism be turned to vice?

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

only time will tell

@crimfan 7 лет назад

Wasn't "Lost Cause" of the late 19th Century a form of revisionism?

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

yes, but that is not historiographically linked. There are a lot of types of revisionism, but if they predate the 1960s, you can pretty much guess that they are not part of new left revisionism

@dinotsar6396 2 года назад

I own both a People’s History and a Patriot’s history but have not read either yet. What would you say are the strengthens and weaknesses of both books?

@johnbrighton7813 2 года назад

I think I noticed a slight error here! Did you mean to say that the Civil Rights Movement achieved its goal in 1965? Because you said 1964. And if I recall correctly wasn’t key voting legislation passed in 65?

@CynicalHistorian 2 года назад

Civil Rights Act of 1964

@DICKBUTTPENISDRAGON 8 лет назад

This was eye-opening to me. I didn't know many of my own beliefs would be considered Orthodox.

@zeveroarerules 7 лет назад

Would you mind adding the links you include in the video to your description? Would make it easier to see and read everything :)

@codex3048 6 лет назад

The problem is most of the faces showed in the video while discussing orthodoxy and revisionism were not historians. Rush Limbaugh is not an historian.

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

that's talking about anger from "the orthodox view," as in popular backlash. no one needs to be a historian to complain about them

@anonymousanonymous7250 8 лет назад

Here is a Question for you. The Broadway Musical Hamilton, do you think that it takes a revisionist stance? And furthermore, do you think that it takes it to dangerous levels?

@kenlandon6130 3 года назад

5:28 "Columbus' great discovery" LOL. He didn't discover what became the USA, he never set foot there.

@TheBLGL 2 года назад

5:28 said nothing about Columbus, and if you’re referring to the picture right before that, I’m sure it was shown to illustrate the Orthodox version of history. Seriously this comment doesn’t make sense, never once heard this man say Columbus “discovered” the US.

@youthiswastedonme 7 лет назад

Have you actually studied history in university? If so, to what extent?

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

+youthiswastedonme i hold an MA in history

@jacktomlin6304 4 года назад

Well put, sir, and thoughful.

@seanhaskell2248 4 года назад

A people’s history by Howard Zinn. I own it! What a great book! I actually learned a lot from it.

@maddymulligan2694 2 года назад

I wish you go into more information on each other in other videos

@andreraymond6860 7 лет назад

Are these labels applicable otside of the study of American history? You threw in the word "World" in there a few times and yet all the examples you gave to illustrate the rise of revisionist history were pointedly American. American civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam movement, etc. How does this apply to the history of, say, Finland? or New Zealand? Have they had revisionist movements? I did a lot of research on Piracy in the West Indies and south America in the late 17th and early 18th century. The whole field is dominated by the Victorian mindset. A few historians who sought to bring a new perspective on the subject (I'm thinking of Richard Burgh for example) were hotly debated if not coldly rejected, despite what appeared to be well researched study and thoughtful conclusions. Ironically I see the series "Black Sails" reflecting some of his ideas in the writing. I would love for you to do a video on that series as well as on "Pirates Of The Caribbean"

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

The simple answer is yes. This definitely applies elsewhere. The reason I stick with American examples is that I'm an Americanist, so that is what I know best.

@andreraymond6860 7 лет назад

Thanks. What would you say the strongest revisionist movement was in the latter half of the 20th century? You make no mention of feminism.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

It's not that I don't. Feminism is the gender component of race, class, and gender studies. I wouldn't define any particular argument as the biggest in revisionism. After-all, it is basically a meta-historiography term, so a bit too complicated to easily say something along those lines.

@tyttiMK 7 лет назад

Speaking as a Finn, I wouldn't be so sure. Our history is so much more "hands on", the people have lived it. There has been no partisanship, civil rights movement, Vietnam War or "triumphant past"... And frankly, I'm not really sure we care about "what caused the Cold War". We had just fought two hot wars against the Soviet Union (while USA was its ally) and I think I have to laugh at the thought of "the maltreated Soviets" when no one really knows or cares how Stalin treated ethnic Finns all throughout the 1930's (and later people in the Baltic States), except Finns, of course.

@JayLeePoe 4 года назад

Gramsci, hegemony, etc; the imprisoned philosopher has nothing but time to get as granular with the truth of things as possible. My ideas versus your ideas in an ego battle that we simply seek an army to back our side.

@internetprincess788 4 года назад

I want to learn more about this stuff is there any unbiased literature out there that I can learn from

@johnc5588 7 лет назад

Just watched your newest video about Americas longest wars. Wouldn't the culture war be one of our longest wars?

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

LOL. Yeah, the culture war is euphemism, like "war on poverty." No one is directly getting killed because of what they believe historically. Imagine if that were the case

@johnc5588 7 лет назад

with the push for the removal of all confederate monuments would you consider that as an attempt at revisionist history or just trying to ignore what some consider at a dark time 'n our history?

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

revisionist history still has to add to scholarship. Removing monuments, whatever they may be for, is quite the opposite

@douglasphillips5870 6 лет назад

I'm looking for more information on new south revisionism. Do you have any videos on that? or can you direct me to a good source of information?

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

+Douglas Phillips i deal with it directly in the Birth of a Nation (1915) review, and tangentially in the recent Wilson episode

@donk100100 4 года назад

Sorry, I'm not by any means an historian but consider myself well-read and meaningfully try to understand the world around me. However, I have to say this video confused me. Isn't history literally the study of history to tell me what happened when-where-what-how-and-why? History is only biased when I give it a slant, to personalize it, like I'm putting my own feelings or spin into history by my own bias? For example, I could say the Christian or Jewish Scriptures are a historically accurate books and refuse to accept scientific statement that state otherwise. Or rationalize in the superiority of a race over another. But I'd argue that these are NOT history but my own interpretation of history under the lens of my own biases? Just trying to understand and become informed.

@jcleve04 7 лет назад

Does anyone have a decent source for all this material? I would like to read more on the subject.

@GrandGobboBarb 5 лет назад

I like revisionism that grows out of a post-revisionist perspective. A sort of post-post-revisionist-revisionism, if you will :D

@chrisvandijk9152 7 лет назад

Hey Cypher, Can you recommend some of your favorite history books and why? Looking for some good ones.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

+Chris van Dijk greatly depends on the subject you want to begin with. My favorites for overall works history are the Durant series, called "the story of civilization." That's a hell of a lot of reading though (literally thousands of pages). What did you have in mind?

@chrisvandijk9152 7 лет назад

Well I'm very much an amateur in the history subject. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly but I would like to a few good titles that delves into essential, or very important, events in history of countries such as: -America -Russia -Japan -China A war, something barely talked about, an underrated history book. I guess first books that are singular (the Durant series do look very interesting). Currently I'm reading The New Tsar by Steven Lee Myers, which is a good book on the subject of Putin and modern Russia. Very much like your video's btw. Though I have one question: Gladiator gets a lot of respect from historians despite it's historical accuracy but Kingdom of Heaven doesn't. In what way is Kingdom of Heaven (if you agree) less respectful of history than Gladiator? Even though both are deeply unfaithful to its history.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

Thanks. On the movie comparison: Gladiator tries to, at least, get the feeling of the history it depicts, whereas Kingdom of Heaven is just all over the place in tone and fidelity. In terms of books, generally you have to narrow down the subject a little, because all of history is about the biggest subject you can conceive. But a war that's "something barely talked about," as you say - that may include American Small Wars (one of my favorite subjects). The best book on that is Max Boot's _Savage Wars of Peace_. A couple for international confilcts that are fairly under-studied are _Little-Known Wars of Great and Lasting Impact_ by Alan Axelrod for older conflicts or _Wars of National Liberation_ by Daniel Moran for more recent faire.

@chrisvandijk9152 7 лет назад

Thanks for your reply. I do like many aspects of Kingdom of Heaven personally, but it's certainly a flawed film and its inaccuracies and misunderstandings are attrocious. You mean this book I guess: www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/0465064930 Looks extremely interesting, I think I'll check it out :) I'll watch out for any of your other video's and those I haven't seen yet. One more question, which I would like your view on: what do you think of Oliver Stone's documentary work? Isn't his cosy relationship with dictators troubling? I'm especially annoyed with is upcoming documentary about Putin, since Oliver Stone said that he wants to show the other side, but it will basically be a propaganda piece for Putin. It just shows his complete misunderstanding of such tyrants.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

+Chris van Dijk yeah, well he's got a cozy relationship with lieing. Couldn't say a single positive word about his documentaries

@platonicguardian6923 2 года назад

Hegel and Butterfield are laughing from the grave.

@TheBillyReb 6 лет назад

You know what's funny? Despite which camp your in, historians will always portray history from their point of view. Some more true than others.

@vidalzavala8358 6 лет назад

Can someone plz summarize this video, so that i can understand better?

@adamjan55 3 года назад

Does art also falls into these categories? Orthodoxy reminds me Mel Gibson's films. Glorious children of its own culture, maybe a little bit imperfect but generally good men vs previous incarnation of nazis/ corrupt empire which people look at the world as its their own possesion. Revisionism reminds me Kingdom of Heaven. The good guys with 21st century morals vs medieval guys who are intolerant, racist, selfish and generally bad, possibly illiterate and against science. All of them fighting over helpless masses.

@papasha408 7 лет назад

There is no such thing as post revisionism. The idea is absurd.

@TheMrfrodough 8 лет назад

depending on specifics not taking a side (with a very reasonable amount of evidence) is intellectually dishonest. alot of things are debateable and evidence exists for many hypotheses but a blanket im not taking sides doesnt completely work

@PongoXBongo 8 лет назад

It's not necessarily about taking sides, like you said a natural thing to do, but about entrenching yourself and refusing to switch sides when new, superior evidence is presented.

@erejnion 7 лет назад

What? No, fuck that. "Not taking sides" means not entrenching yourself in one given viewpoint. And that works perfectly. You aren't taking sides when you're presenting objective evidence something is true. Or at least very likely to be true.

@fuzzydunlop7928 7 лет назад

Take the side of the truth and cast down the false dichotomy we've been spoon-fed. The only real debate should be on interpretation of the truth.

@williamstronghold9268 7 лет назад

Actually, reporting historical truth without passing judgement (likely what you call Post-Revisionism) is advocated by Sima Qian, the Chinese historian back 2 thousand years ago. Unfortunately, to what I have learnt back in secondary school, he do not stick to this himself. Take it this way that we are looking backward where one has been before in order to proceed forward.

@CynicalHistorian 7 лет назад

I believe you mean Sima Qian, the Grand Historian of the Han (Qian seems to have been a common given-name in Han China)? He definitely gets extraordinarily judgmental of the Qin. You'll find a lot of folks call for historians to be less judgmental. Polybius kind of did as well, almost a century prior to Sima. Heck what I'm paraphrasing is the bible, "judge not, less ye be judged" turned into "understand, but do not judge." This episode is more talking about the current divide in scholarship.

@williamstronghold9268 7 лет назад

The Cynical Historian Yes, I am referring to Sima Qian. Zhang Qian is the person who first walk the Silk Road. Would correct this.

@williamstronghold9268 7 лет назад

The Cynical Historian Understood that you are focus on modern scholarship about history. However, the ideas that we have today are actually available thousands of years ago. It just shows that human tends to forget lessons learnt very fast or ignore things that they don't like to see. Human has always been walking in a circle while still able to make certain progress at the meantime. This is fascinating.

@stevenmiller2820 3 года назад

Orthodox and Revisionist historians make me hate history. I’m glad there’s a third way...

@avitalalef9947 3 года назад

Please put timestamps :) cool vid

@Thor.Jorgensen 6 лет назад

Sadly it would seem that holocaust denialism is today's most common form of historical revisionism.

@madelinespageranbymommyand3559 6 лет назад

The post-revisionist seem to find a difficult time getting a foothold in modern Universities (I hold B.A. US History with a focus in Antebellum Studies and I am working on my M.A.) due to heavy influence of the Radical History Caucus and Howard Zinn protégés working as professors.

@bothejack5929 8 лет назад

what if post revisionism is a form of revisionism. or like hegel sad thesis, antithesis synthesis. And the last synthesis is a new thesis please excuse my english. I m german

@donweismiller2318 6 лет назад

So I should not finish Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.

@Kurvaux 3 года назад

Bit late but yes please do and when you are done pick up a book written a more orthodox author and make up your mind for yourself.

@valenej.6988 7 лет назад

I love this video

@jrosetbs 4 года назад

What a cool video

@Erika-gn1tv 8 лет назад

Oh, History Channel...

@roberthsa9475 6 лет назад

in someway orthodox are also revisionist.

@celinak5062 6 лет назад

Thesis, deconstruction something so Don't put theory before analysis

@ByzantineCapitalManagement 5 лет назад

Post Modernism And Revisionism is quite Similar if not exactly the Same.

@ryleexiii1252 5 лет назад

Worst take. Postmodernism is negation of grand narratives. What's more grand than the value ridden explanation of how we have arrived where we are today? Postmodernism is ultimate skepticism, but at the same time the recognition that there are facts; they've just been contorted through language games, etc.

@jedgrahek1426 4 года назад

Post-Revisionism sounds great. It also sounds "fair and balanced", if you get my drift. It would be a refuge for discredited supporters or Orthodoxy, a tool for them to muddy the waters in bad faith, as much as it can be practiced with sincerity and good intention. I respect you for trying.

@penpaper4850 6 лет назад

You are extremely judgmental about Woodrow Wilson... Hmmmmm Just sayin'

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

indeed - but I get to be judgmental of my peers (historians and those who want to speak of it - AKA Based on a True Stories), no matter how long ago.

@penpaper4850 6 лет назад

The Cynical Historian That's fair... Now, As I peer into the past I suddenly see clearly thanks to you. History is not truth and I have been searching.... I see that If every historian is human And every human is judgmental Then Every historian is judgmental Of course ! And that's only human. So it isn't possible to ever really understand ourselves objectively. That should be the first thing every history teacher everywhere should tell his students. And let the students decide which story works. Love your videos BTW good luck with your studies and hope you make more.

@markmcflounder15 6 лет назад

This is a ridiculous age we live in!!! What happened to as 'accuracyism.' History has become like modern western journalism mixed with a bit of postmodernism. WTF happened to objectivity???

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

Hahaha! This "age we live in" has been around since the Herodotus in the 5th century BC. You're aching for a past that never existed. Even Ranke didn't believe in pure objectivity.

@markmcflounder15 6 лет назад

Hey Cynical, I dont want to talk past you. But, wow there seems to be a lot of postmodernism in your post. If Ranke didn't didnt believe in pure objectivity then why should we believe him? That is a purely objective belief. I think perhaps what you mean and we all can agree is that humans are flawed and err with their biases and limited information. But, floating on a nonexistent sea of postmodern skepticism is vastly distinct. Contemporaneously, journalism especially has lost its objective goal especially compared to a previous generation. Moreover, when you publish videos that interest me a great deal I truly believe you are doing your best to identify objective what is true. In closing I appreciate your comment and the vids you make.

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

We should believe Ranke where his evidence is verifiable and logic is consistent. Questioning objectivity and subjectivity is vital, but we should never delude ourselves into believing that we can be objective, nor should we think that relativity is not relative to something. Ultimately, it is about the verifiability of one's claims and the logic of their arguments, as well as if they can tell a good and convincing story. Bias, pure empiricism, positivism, and relativity are made impractical concerns when the historical method is applied. Don't judge a scholar by their beliefs, judge their beliefs by their argument

@markmcflounder15 6 лет назад

Cynical, I wholeheartedly agree and so adamantly disagree. On the one hand, you state we effectively we should judge on arguments and evidence and then postmodernism rears its head and poisons the entire well. "... we should never delude ourselves into believing that we can be objective." If we are not objective then how can you state that to be true? Moreover, you affirm objectivity and the historical method, but by you're own pronouncement you are not objective. Therefore, one cannot delude oneself into believing what you have to assert as being true as truth. There has to be a degree of objectivity to make the statements you made. Cynical, I just want to challenge you on your philosophical underpinnings. I really like your videos and I am highly interested in what you have to say. I think that you attempting to truthfully; within one's limited knowledge and capacity for bias; to convey correct information especially where error and bias have previously occurred. If I could just digress back to my original comment. Especially, in journalism there has been such blatant distortion and misrepresentation that there was at least an attempt at journalistic integrity 50 years ago. As another example, think of the Soviet propaganda machine in East Germany and the media in the DDR (West Germany). The citizens of the East would secretly, via radio, listen to DDR's news media. Both media have individuals working within their limited knowledge, capabilities and biases; but, only one side had news media that was far and away more accurate. Thanks for the engagement. It's tough to have a substantive discourse on the internet. I enjoy your work but I am just a little 'cynical' about it.

@CynicalHistorian 6 лет назад

+Mark McFlounder i think where we are differing is on the definition of objectivity. Whereas I'm using the 'able to perceive reality as it is,' you seem to be using it as a synonym for verifiability and being unbiased. Verifiability is important, but not a measure of objectivity. Being unbiased only matters in scholarship if one's bias is falsifying work, which is not the same as valuing a particular political point of view and having your research help that agenda. The traditional definition (the one I'm using) is a silly goal, given how the historical method works (ie using evidence which itself limits our objectivity). Postmodernism is a school of thought, but not a definition of truth nor an opposition to objectivity. That false definition is for pundits who's sole task is to ignore anything that challenges them while speaking about it anyways. Scholars cannot afford to be like that. For more on the definition of truth I'm operating under, I go into detail in the pragmatism video