Does "revisionist" sound neutral (neither positive nor negative)here?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NewHopeR

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
Context:
Frank Dikötter (English pronunciation: /diːˈkʌtər/ Chinese: 馮客) is a Dutch historian and author of Mao's Great Famine. The book won the 2011 Samuel Johnson Prize.[2] Dikötter is Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong, where he teaches courses on both Mao Zedong and the Great Chinese Famine,[3] and Professor of the Modern History of China from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.

Dikötter is considered to be a revisionist historian, having stressed the benefits of opium smoking in Patient Zero, as well as calling for the rehabilitation of Republican China under Chiang Kai-shek in The Age of Openness.[4][5]

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dik%C3%B6tter
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Have a look here at the Wikipedia entry on "Revisionist History". The very first line should answer your question.
 

BobK

Harmless drudge
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK

It depends on your politics. A lot of people in the West think revisionist history is bad, but there are polities that still practise it and assume that it's good.

b
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I'd say it's rarely neutral. To be called revisionist, it almost has to be ideologically- or politically-based.
For example, at school, we used to learn about the Foundation of Australia on 26th Jan, 1788 by the British Governor, Arthur Phillip. That is our national day, Australia Day (just gone). Today, many history books and other works refer to this as the Invasion of Australia, and refer to 26th Jan. as Invasion Day.
Naturally, what you refer to this day as depends on your politics.

If it were discovered that this event actually occurred on the 27th, not 26th, that would be a revising of history, but it wouldn't be called historical revisionism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top