The Believer Interview With Harold Ramis
|HR:||I can’t tell you how many people have told me, “When I go to the movies, I don’t want to think.”|
|BLVR:||Does that offend you as a filmmaker?|
|HR:||It offends me as a human being. Why wouldn’t you want to think? What does that mean? Why not just shoot yourself in the fucking head?|
I’m confused, isn’t revisionism a good thing in the historical field?
It’s honestly been reduced in popular culture to a buzzword to insult whoever you think is on the “other side” of the sociopolitical tug-of-war American educational “canon” has become.
In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.
Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.
History is constantly being revised and re-examined, I’m just trying to lend some transparency to the process and show how it serves the status quo, or alternately, can be used to undermine it.
As I’ve pointed out before, using 300 year old scholarship to teach in classrooms today is pretty in need of revision. Then again, what the extreme right did to make textbooks show “the sunny side of slavery" was also revision.
The problem with using “revision” as an insult it that it’s based on the false premise that something older is more true. Which as you might notice, is counter to the actual process of writing, creating, and learning history.