Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Herbert: 'The Money Magnet'"] [Archive Index] [>>"Cohen on Blumenthal"]
06/24/2003 Archived Entry: "Giving 'revisionists' a bad name"
Giving 'revisionists' a bad name
A Harvard history professor takes issue with Bush's labelling of critics as 'revisionists.' He makes an interesting point.
The first histories of war and of major political conflicts are almost always told by the winners; the first sources of information tend to be men (and occasionally women) who hold the reins of power. But those official histories are always flawed and incomplete, precisely because the sources are partial and self-serving. Sooner or later, revisionist challenges emerge, provoking debates that are uncomfortable for political leaders, although salutary for the society those leaders are supposed to serve. That was true 30 years ago as the nation struggled with Vietnam, and it is no less true now.If, in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq this winter, and if, in fact, there were few ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, our interpretation of this most recent war and why we got into it must inevitably be reshaped. It is far too soon to tell how this war will look to historians in future generations, but getting as close to the truth now as we can is a matter of no small importance -- particularly as we face the prospect of a prolonged and costly occupation.
It is understandable that the president and his advisers are unhappy with criticism of their conduct of the war. But revisionist histories -- multiple, competing, conflicting accounts of important events -- ought not be treated as suspect; they are instead expressions of intellectual and political life in a democracy. The suppression of revisionist history has generally been a mark of dictatorships -- from Hitler to Stalin to Saddam Hussein himself. Or have we forgotten that?
