An Excellent article from Al Mackey.

Be advised this door swings both ways. It has been countless times I have caught Al Mackey, Brooks Simpson and Rob Baker revising history to fit their agenda. What do they do when I point out these errors ? They ban me. Theat fact can be proven just by looking at the mentioned blogs.

So I made a mistake I should have used indentured servant instead of slave in my Lincoln post I said that several time admitting that it was a poor choice of words. These fellows have never admitted the slightest mistake. I’ll leave it at that.

Brooks don’t forget you pingbacks ya hea??????

*******************************

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/revisionist-history/

Revisionist History

You’ve heard it before. Perhaps you’ve even used the term. “That’s revisionist history!” “Those people are revising history!” “S/He’s a revisionist!” People who use that term talk like it’s a bad thing to revise history. Is it?

I think we need to start first with understanding what we’re talking about by “history.” I like to start with the dictionary.

his·to·ry noun \ˈhis-t(ə-)rē\

: the study of past events

: events of the past

: past events that relate to a particular subject, place, organization, etc.

plural his·to·ries
CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago

Full Definition of HISTORY
1 : tale, story
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena
c : an account of a patient’s medical background
d : an established record
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history
b : events of the past
c : one that is finished or done for
d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
Examples of HISTORY
1.I studied history in college.
2.a professor of medieval history
3.They were one of the greatest teams in history.
4.It was one of the most destructive storms in modern history.
5.It was a period in American history when most people lived and worked on farms.
6.The history of space exploration is a fascinating topic.
7.He wrote a well-known history of the British empire.
8.The book begins with a brief history of the Internet.
Origin of HISTORY

Middle English histoire, historie, from Anglo-French estoire, histoire, from Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histōr, istōr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know
First Known Use: 14th century
For this particular topic, this definition is applicable: “a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes.”
We’re talking here about written history of events, and specifically secondary sources. See a discussion of sources here, and primary sources in particular here.
When talking about “revising history,” we’re talking about revising secondary sources, not primary sources. A primary source doesn’t get revised. It’s contemporaneous testimony from someone who was there. What gets revised is our understanding of what those primary sources mean.
Now we need to talk a little bit about how historians work. They start by asking a question regarding a historical event. To answer that question they do research in primary and secondary sources to find out what happened. Based on their research and their insight into the event they come to a conclusion on the answer to their question and conclusions about the event. Answering that question leads to other questions to be answered, which are researched, and so on until they have findings about that historical event. Then they publish their findings and those findings are reviewed by other historians to ensure they’ve handled the evidence correctly. You can see more on this here, here, and here.
A conclusion about a historical event based on primary source evidence is one that can be defended.

If enough people are convinced of its accuracy, it then becomes the dominant interpretation of the event. Unfortunately, we don’t have 100% complete information about any event. We obviously can’t read the minds of people who lived many years ago, so we have to rely on the historical record which consists of written evidence, archaeological evidence, and other records. Also, each historical actor experienced the same event in different ways, so what one person writes may differ markedly from what another person writes, and both could be correct. Because we don’t have 100% certainty we have to interpret the past. See here and here for two perspectives on this. If there was not going to be any revision of interpretation, then all we would need to do is have one book about each historical event. You’d read that book and that’s all you would need to know. But things change. New evidence is uncovered. Perhaps someone finds an old book and some letters are in the book. Or perhaps a trunk filled with letters that has been in storage is discovered. These new letters are additional evidence, and perhaps they impact our understanding of a historical event. The new evidence just might mean we have to alter our interpretation of the event. In other words, we have to revise our interpretation. Another way historical interpretation is revised is if we approach an event from a different perspective and view the evidence through that new perspective. It may force us to revise what we previously thought.
This is something historians do all the time. So really, when people complain about “revisionists” and “revisionist history,” they’re complaining that historians are doing what they’re supposed to be doing–looking at the evidence and revising our understanding of it based on a new understanding of the evidence or based on new evidence. Revisionism, then, isn’t necessarily a bad thing provided it’s done through an honest handling of the evidence and is based on primary source evidence, and not a partial reading of that primary source evidence. Revising history isn’t a bad thing, but lying about history, abusing historical sources by claiming they say what they don’t say, and misclaiming facts are bad things. That’s not revisionism, that’s simply bad history.
So next time you come up against someone using bad history, call them on bad history. But don’t call them revisionists, because all historians are revisionists, and we wouldn’t want them to be anything else. We want them to revise our understanding of events based on new evidence. We want them to revise our understanding of events based on new perspectives and different ways of thinking about and approaching events.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “An Excellent article from Al Mackey.

  1. You are also wrong about indentured servant. I mean, what sources are you using to base that argument on? This is the same shoddy work as you saying M. Johnson was a slave.

      • Ok fair enough. I forgot I made that reference.

        So if you read that post why is it you keep beating a dead horse?

        Also keep this post in mind as you will be mentioned later. This is more for future use more than anything else. BTW have you ever made a post where you used the wrong word or your history was slightly wrong??? I suggest you think about it.

      • Because you have adjusted your argument to say that M. Johnson is an indentured servant. You have nothing to back up that argument.

      • So you are going back to acting like a child again? That is typical for you. I just gave you a warning a you haven’t the sense to take good advice. From this point on your posts will now longer be approved.

  2. I was saving this to use another time and to keep everyone “honest’ so to speak. But what the heck lets start off with Baker. See when he first banned me from his blog —

    No remember baker you have used up all you get out of jail cards.

    https://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/banned-again/

    and that is just to start on me. Shall we go all the way back to the starving men at Sumter. I can point out you poor history all day long

    Here is just the most recent I found aot about—

    http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/07/referring-to-comment-thread-following.html

    So here is the deal same as with Meters, and Shelly, you can apologize and I will post it on Cold Southern Steel or you 3 can just scratch each others butts and pick your noses. YOUR CHOICE

  3. There are many more examples of Bakers ignorance posted to Cold Southern Steel all one has to do is just back track to find them.

    Now keeping in mind Al Mackey’s article about getting history right. So Brooks Shrimpson decides he is going to jump on the bandwagon and use a blog post for the purpose of telling me what is evident on the census page and actually just to give all his lackeys a chance to insult me, which is typical for for that low crowd. Let’s just see how smart Shrimpson is .

    Go to my page at https://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/maybe-brooks-simpson-has-the-reading-problem/ notice Shrimpson banned me because he had the ignorance to actually that a John S. Mosby letter was proof positive that the war was about slavery. Mosby had nothing to do with the policy making of the Confederate States. The fact is slavery was not the cause of the war. Anyone who makes that statement is ignorant of the facts or just promoting their agenda.

    I seldom ever visit Shrimpson’s blog, my fried Connie at http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/ keeps up with his posts. To really see the hate this so called “historian” has for the South I suggest one visit Backsass.

    Don’t worry Mackey I am going to get to you. Just hold tight

  4. Well it certainly didn’t take long for Mackey to come forward with some of his revisionist history — a better word would be lies.

    Lets just take one small sample of how Mackey doesn’t believe what he says. In his latest smear post at http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/shelby-foote-hollywood-and-history/

    Macakey says this — “Shelby Foote tells us, “This country was really in its adolescence at the time of the Civil War. It was 80-odd years old but that’s very young for a country. The war was caused by growing pains. The North was coming to dominate the country through its industrial development. The South resented that so they, they thought they had the absolute right to secede.” Foote here is deeply steeped in the lost cause myth. Notice he doesn’t say a word about slavery.”

    So Mackey why should Foote mention slavery when slavery was not a cause? I have been trying to get you to post documents for at least a year to prove this point. I am not concerned with the rest of your article when right out the door you are caught in a lie. Is that the best you have??? My suggestion is you go back to using the NPS rangers for your posts since you obviously cannot tell the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s