Hi Daddy, David B. & MD,
The writing of history SHOULD be an intellectual activity, however, like all
other intellectual activities it is informed by the Social level. In practice,
the writing of history is a Social level activity. After all, history itself
is a recording of the state of the Social level at a previous time.
I think we would all agree that there is often a difference between what we
experienced and what historians say afterward. President Kennedy is an
excellent example of revisionist history being diametrically opposed to
experience. During Kennedy's term no one had any idea he was such a
philanderer. It became common knowledge only after the fact. Supported by
incontrovertible evidence, this is a case of revisionist history at it's best.
The motivation for dropping atomic bombs on Japan is not so clear cut. If the
evidence for a Russian motivation were as clearly obvious as Kennedy's behavior
I doubt even Daddy would disagree. But that is not the case. At the time,
even the stated motivation was based largely on speculation - no doubt informed
speculation about the number of casualties - but speculation none the less.
Given this situation, it seems almost too easy for a revisionist to come along
later and find evidence for much more cynical explanations.
Whenever revisionist history negates the experiences of the people alive at the
time, I think it is necessary to carefully examine the evidence they have used
to support their claim. This is particularly important in light of the Social
level fact that a new, explosive finding by a revisionist is guaranteed to
bring him/her success, fame, fortune, and all those other goodies the Social
level has to provide.
- Mary
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST