Revisionism

hey I’m seeing a lot of rose-tinted revisionism of george w. bush so here’s your unfriendly reminder that the man is a war criminal whose hands are irrevocably stained with the blood of tens of thousands of middle eastern civilians so fucking miss me with that please

Although they are presented as harmless, goofy explorations of inane historical side-notes, cable TV specials such as Ancient Aliens and The Lost History of Ancient America normalise expressions of racist intellectual attitudes towards native peoples.

Their basic premise remains: ‘These primitive brown people couldn’t possibly have contributed to our cultural history! It must have been [aliens / giants / prehistorical Europeans]’. Indigenous peoples in North America, Latin America and Africa were practical metallurgists, experimental chemists, civil engineers and urban planners - restoring native peoples to their factual place in human developmental history reveals a dazzlingly beautiful archaeological narrative which throws grubby crypto-fascist conspiracy loons into the shade. 

Busting these absurd, revisionist ahistories is an anti-racist duty.

For me the most annoying examples of historical inaccuracy + Horseshoe Theory are when people claim to be against racism but they’re so Western-centric they think imperialism and racism was a European-only enterprise. And so, they go so far around the bend that they romanticise and fetishise powerful and expansionist non-European empires that were no less imperialist than the European empires they rail against. 

i’m sure you guys know because i’ve mentioned these before on my blog- but some of the biggest offenders here include the mind-boggling manner in which the Empire of Japan is championed as an “anti-colonial” force (even though it was an undisguised colonial power that caused a destructive conflict that left 25 million people dead in Asia). or the Ottoman Empire- when people disregard its genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. we cannot claim to be anti-imperialist if we’re gonna be OK with it or assume it is somehow less serious because the imperialists are not white by Western standards. nor can we claim to be against Western imperialism because perpetuating Western-centric history is itself a manifestation of Western cultural imperialism.

Ignoring the capacity of non-European empires for war, racism and even genocide just to present a photoshopped version of them as somehow being 100% utopian, enlightened examples of “anti-colonial” state-building amounts to actively erasing non-European history. This is not seeing non-Europeans as fully actualised and complex human beings who, like all human cultures, could produce works of art, science and philosophy while also engaging in warfare and violence. The idea that the world was peaceful before the rise of European imperialism suggests the outlines of the world were always the same, that the modern concept of Europe was eternal (see the Roman Empire, which plainly saw Northern Europeans as uncivilised barbarians). It suggests Europeans were perpetually at the nexus of global power. When they were not. 

Nazis weren’t socialists.  Just Stop.

Look, I get why you think that.  “National Socialism!  It’s right in the name!”  It’s easy to think that, but I’m here to tell you exactly why you’re wrong.

And it’s a matter of stipulative definitions.  If you don’t know what they are:

If you want a clear example of how they’re used, one such example is the social justice definition of racism, dissected in the link.

They’re definitions that only apply to one very specific context, and Hitler’s usage of the term Socialism was clearly shown to be a stipulative one in a speech on November 16th, 1928.

“We have to strip the terms ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Socialism’ of their previous meaning. Only that man is a nationalist who stands by his people, and only that man is a socialist who stands up for the rights of his people both internally and externally.”

Standing up for the rights of Aryan Germans was, in Nazi Germany, the definition of a socialist in the phrase “National Socialist”.  This was in connection to what he pushed as the “National Community” which was the Aryan version of American Exceptionalism (”we’re better than everyone, we have a right to expand and take what we need, etc.”).  It wasn’t “Nationalism + Socialist”, a mixing of two ideologies.  It was an entirely new ideology.

He would go on to explicitly say that National Socialism “did not lie in socialism as a universal panacea nor was it a nationalist variant of that idea.”

“But what about the economics of Germany?”

He explained the over-arching philosophy of Nazi Germany’s economy as well in a meeting in 1930 with Strauss in Munich.  He was asked in reference to major German corporations like Krupp, ver-batim  

“Would everything remain unchanged in terms of ownership, profits and management?” 

Hitler’s reply?

“But of course.  Do you think I’m mad enough to destroy the economy?”

He would only step in and seize control of corporations when they worked against what he determined to be “the national interest”.

Which is why, when you rub two brain cells together, Schindler had enough money to save all those Jewish people.  He had political clout and wealth not from being a Party Member (like in soviet russia) but from being a rich businessman who didn’t work against the “national interest”.

Another thing to keep in mind was that Hitler didn’t call socialists “Socialists”.  He labeled them and their movement as “simply marxist(m)”.

He even used socialists and communists as scapegoats and persecuted them.  The Reichstag fire was famously blamed on communists.  He had Goebbels actively prevent socialists from running articles and speeches promoting their ideas.  Socialists were regularly arrested and sent to labor camps. The Night of Long Knives explicitly targeted Socialists and Communists for execution.

So after watching Hidden Figures I’ve been researching the lives of the main three protagonists and I found something really beautiful??? 

Karl Zielinski, the Polish Jewish man who in the film encourages Mary Jackson to go get her engineering degree is based on a real person! The real man’s name was Kazimierz Czarnecki and I wish that they’d left his real name in the narrative. He was a long time mentor of Mary and they even published a whole bunch of scientific papers together! And, when he retired, she threw a party for him.

Kevin Costner’s ‘Some White Men Were Good During Segregation’ plotline was utterly useless, unnecessary and complete historical revisionism designed to make white people feel comfortable. If they wanted a white male protagonist, they should have focused on the achievements of Kazimierz Czarnecki instead and celebrated the solidarity between Jewish people and Black people.

The post-election narrative has been a chilling wake up call to how fast history can be revised if enough people see revisionism to be in their best interest. I always thought that memories of major events take years, if not decades, to warp around certain agendas, but it turns out it could happen literally overnight. Right until election day, every pundit said Clinton was running one of the smoothest and most professional campaigns in recent memory, while Trump was running a trainwreck. They laughed at him for campaigning in Wisconsin because what kind of idiot would visit such a solidly blue state. But on election night it dawned on the media that maybe they made a massive fuck up by treating an email server as anything but mild carelessness, and Bernie diehards who stayed home realized that maybe their votes could have made a difference, and Republicans who hated Trump and voted third party realized the same thing, and so they all immediately started saying she ran the worst campaign and was the worst candidate in all history, no one could possibly be blamed but her, and now that’s the narrative. In Katy Tur’s book she talks about struggling to fight against the way Trump gaslights the media, but the media has made no attempt to rectify the gaslighting it’s been doing for 10 months.

Remember, remember the 21st of September

On Thursday, September 21, 2017, the Philippines will commemorate the 45th anniversary of the declaration of martial law.

September 21, 1972 was the beginning of a dark night for students, activists, and ordinary people. The military picked suspected communists and rebels off the streets, tortured them. Some of these students and activists never saw the light of the day.

Today, I find netizens who have never lived through Martial Law declaring the greatness of Ferdinand Marcos and calling those 20 years of debt, corruption, and blood the Golden Age of the Philippines. This is nothing but shameless historical revisionism.

As a nation, we have failed to make everyone remember how horrid this time was.

The extravagant Imelda Marcos, she of the 3,000 pairs of shoes still holds public office. Imee Marcos, the daughter who had a man killed because he defied her, also holds public office. Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., the son, almost won the vice-presidency and now asks that the votes be recounted in the hopes of seeing victory.

What kind of nation forgets so easily that a dictator’s family can still hold so much power in the same country they looted from?

Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to declare martial law if protests on the 21st by the communist groups, the Left, and militant activists turn “violent.” This is after his Congress gave an almost negligible budget to the Commission on Human Rights.

He is still wildly popular, and the police are still trigger-happy.

I fear that we will enter a much darker night, as if our days have not been bathed in the blood of 13,000 suspected drugs users and traffickers.

But let it be known that many will refuse to forget that darkness. We will stay up even during the darkest nights, even if it means waiting for an elusive dawn or never catching the first rays of the sun forever.

We will never forget. We will remind you of heroes and martyrs. We will remind you of those who were never found. We will remind you that once upon a time, we rose up. We will remember.

anonymous asked:

do you think that part of the reason why kink isn't seen as queer anymore by the new generation is due to a lack of queer elders? that if queer people hadn't been condemned to death in the aids epidemic that we would still have this as a part of queer culture?

oh, very much.  that and the way we’re often quite scattered - it takes actually seeking out queer culture, and there often isn’t an infrastructure in place for finding people to talk to (because institutionally shut out), and there’s so very many books and few guides to being critical about them…

like, prime setup for misinformation to be channeled by the people who never wanted kink associated with queer (cough, radfems and assimilationists, cough).  and ability to point to ~mainstream Examples~ that are alas far more visible and part of this new generation’s memory than any historical context

and there’s the, very tricky piece of.  telling people “listen to your elders” Tends To Go Not Well.  anecdota get dismissed as nonrepresentative, because Paradigms and the evidence of one’s own eyes and ears.  and that’s, really hard to shift?

i think it’s impossible to actually say, because yeah maybe this generation still would’ve adhered to “but look at 50 shades”?  but maybe kinky queer activists would’ve had a louder voice countering that whole media scene, also?

but, yes i do think, a lot of the work of “queer” specifically was horrifically set back by the aids epidemic, and stepping in to wedge that gap wider are your mainstreamers and radfems whooo play on “kink and poly are straight mainstream” to… divorce their attempt to become (not queer but) Gay Mainstream.

anonymous asked:

You said the Republican party fought against slavery.. That is true, but the Republican party around that time period have more modern Democrat beliefs. They were northerners who believed in equal rights. And the Democratic party in the 1800s had view more similar to modern Republican beliefs. The party's beliefs flip flopped around late 1800s-early 1900s.. The conservative states were always advocating for slavery and oppression. They were also the last states to give women the right to vote.

Originally posted by onemorechapter11

Let’s discuss some history then.

1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.

1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.

1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.

1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.

1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.

1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.

1838 -  Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.

1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.

1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.

1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.

1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.

1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.

1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.

1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.

1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.

1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.

1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.

1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether the white man is willing or not, because you prohibit discrimination against him.“

1884 - A train conductor orders Ida B. Wells, a black Republican woman, to give up her seat and move to the smoking car. Wells was an investigative journalist who worked for a Republican journal to expose the horror of lynching. She advocated for the 2nd amendment rights for blacks so that they could protect themselves, and she denounced the Democratic Party for treating blacks as property unequal to whites.

1892 - Democrat Benjamin Tillman is re-elected to the Senate. He was a white supremacist who boasted his participation in lynchings. He is quoted saying that “as long as the Negroes continue to ravish white women we will continue to lynch them.”

1915 - Democrat President Woodrow Wilson screens KKK promotion film Birth of a Nation. The film pictured blacks as ignorant and violent savages, and the Klu Klux Klan as rescuers and protectors of the civilized world. The popularity of the movie revived the Klu Klux Klan which had previously gone extinct. Reportedly Wilson said about the film that “[it] is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

1919 - The 19th Amendment which officially gave women the right to vote passed with 82% Republican support and 54% Democrat support in congress.

1924 - Thousands of Klansmen attend the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

1933 -  The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state.”

1933 - Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act with the well-meaning goal to help farmers and sharecroppers. Instead, though it aided white farmers, it resulted in increased unemployment and displacement of black farmers.

1933 -  FDR established the National Recovery Administration to stimulate business recovery by forcing employers to pay higher wages for less work. This relief program was enforced on a local level and allowed Jim Crow racism to flourish, resulting in many blacks being fired to be replaced by whites. 

1934 -  The Federal Housing Administration is introduced under FDR. The FHA made homeownership accessible for whites, but explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people.

1936 - The Roosevelt Administration finally begins vying for the black vote. Though the relief programs neglected blacks, their communities were bombarded with advertisements. FDR began to garner black support though the vast majority remained economically unchanged and locked into poverty.

1942 - FDR orders American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their homes into interment camps without due process after the bombings at Pearl Harbor.

1953 - Senator Robert Byrd is elected into congress and remains a staunch Democrat until his death in 2010. He was a prominent member in the KKK and praised by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

1955 - Democrat Richard Daley is elected mayor of Chicago. He resisted residential desegregation, defended public school segregation, and used urban renewal funds to build massive public housing projects that kept blacks within existing ghettos.

1957 - The Civil Rights Act of 1957 is passes with 93% Republican support and 59% Democrat support.

1963 - After the assassination of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn into office. LBJ was a Democrat remembered by a famous quote: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

1965 - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passes with 94% Republican support and 73% Democrat support.

1968 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated. MLK voted Republican.

1960-70s - A total of 24 Democratic members of congress switched to become Republican over a 20 year period. The majority of democrats in that time period remained democrats.

1995 - Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama is published. Obama discusses how the urban cities would become the new plantation for blacks under Democrat political bosses: “The plantation, the blacks have the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant; but when the so-called black committee man come around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spit in our faces, and we reward them with the vote.“

2009 - Hillary Clinton lauds Margaret Sanger, KKK advocate, white supremacist, and eugenicist at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Honors Gala: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.”

Me: 1
History revisionism: 0

Originally posted by whiteangelxoxo

Follow | Confess | Archive

[My sociology professor used Living Witness as an example of historical revisionism and its’ long term consequences because, she explained, fictional examples made it easier for people to grasp real-life instances of it. And it really worked - everyone in my class got it, which is so important considering a lot of them are education majors. Never tell me Star Trek doesn’t have an impact on people.]

Reince Priebus is Trump’s White House Chief of Staff. This is his statement on Trump neglecting to mention the Jewish or any other specific victims of the Holocaust. This is how they turn a targeted genocide into “something that happened.” A majority of Jews in Europe and enormous numbers of Jews in the Middle East and North Africa were murdered because of the Nazis during the Holocaust. Erasing that fact is antisemitism. Telling Jews to shut up about our own genocide is antisemitism. If you want to talk about the other victims, mention who they were. Don’t universalize. Don’t omit. The Holocaust was not universal. To pretend otherwise is Holocaust Revisionism and Holocaust Denial. Do not normalize it.

youtube

A constant reality: How hard it is to do a historian’s work. We make enemies out of people not because we want to, but because we have to. Not that history or historians have not been manipulated. History has been manipulated oftentimes through revisionist means. There is a grain of truth in saying that history has been written by the victors. And since history is in the very gore and grime of things, telling the unfolding revealed drama of human nature, there are things that people often forget, or choose to forget. There are even some historians who choose not to reveal things, blinded by either conviction or political agenda. But then again, show me a historian who doesn’t have any tinge of bias. So then, it is my conviction that history is dangerous. For good or for ill, it is a tool for truth or for deception. It remains so especially when the actors in the history being told are still alive, through dynastic families that live on in our political life. It was Leon Ma. Guerrero who pointed out that indeed, an educated native is a dangerous native.

And so it is quite disturbing to find stuff on the Marcoses on the net. Stuff that are more or less positive and to the core, revisionist. I also noticed that most of these people who say that Marcos was the best president the country ever had never lived at the time of Martial Law. Whether driven by desperation and hopelessness for the country’s present problems, these young people now have a positive look at Marcos and his regime. It is also that dichotomy of discipline vs. freedom that most of these people argue on. We need to be disciplined, they say. Democracy doesn’t really work for us, because Filipinos do not know how to use and dispense their freedom. The Philippines needed Marcos. And Marcos put the Philippines on the map.

Really? 

But then, is it really worth it, to sacrifice our basic freedoms—freedom of the press, of the speech, of assembly—for order, for progress? Or for that matter, is it right to call a muted vox populi, a pervading fear to be taken in and never be seen again, as progress?

While I can also say I never lived at the time like these young people, I would like to reiterate that the same freedom that make them say something FOR the Marcoses was the same freedom that was never present when the Marcoses were in power.

Books are written to prove this. Scholars have published peer reviewed journals agreeing that the Philippines plummeted to economic debt under the Marcos regime. Victims that were never seen again remain missing. The corruption ran deep in the military during Marcos’s regime that it is hard to think how deep the rabbithole went. The materials are out there. The proof is staring us in the face.

So please. Enough with opinions. Show me some cold hard facts to support your view, and let us derive from those facts. For if what you say is truth, your stand would survive the scrutiny of academic inquiry, an exercise of freedom that Marcos himself discouraged.

My advise…. guys, read.

Video above, released by ABS CBN.

Blog posts on Martial Law HERE.

Historical revisionism is pretending the part in Fesh Pince when they watch my little pony and Carlton dances to a living tombstone song never happened

2017 vi🅱eo game historical revisionism fight:

call of duty ww2 removing all nazi imagery from a world war 2 video game vs battlefiled 1 locking the french and russians behind dlc for a world war 1 video game