There's a lot of revisionist history that goes on these days about Iraq.

Yes, academia is often in the brainwashing business and revisionist history is alive and well.

He could have made it right with the book. But he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied.

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

It is a long revisionist road up from the bottom for George W. Bush. He is ranked toward the bottom rung of presidents.

'Line Of Duty' is first and foremost a thriller. But I hope it will also be seen as a revisionist commentary on 21st century policing.

We can be revisionist, and that's a good thing to be at times, but we shouldn't airbrush our history, so we can only make judgments in the objective conditions of that time.

Memory is revisionist, you know. 'The Houston Kid' was based on true things that happened. But I know - from writing a memoir that I've been working on for awhile - that reconstructing memory is revisionism.

Since the election, since the formation of a government, the death in Iraq has increased. The United States stands by, helpless to do anything about it. That's the reality, not George Bush's revisionist history!

Lehi was not a part of the Zionist movement, not a part of the Revisionist Party. It was sometimes something apart, and Lord Moyne was the highest British official in the Middle East... and because we fought against the British in this area, we took him for a target.

It's been a while since I checked in with Malcolm Gladwell's 'Revisionist History' podcast. The episode 'The King of Tears' suggests the author is raising the bar. His argument is that country music is the genre that makes us cry because, unlike rock, it's not afraid of specifics.

There are so many stories to tell in the worlds of science fiction, the worlds of fantasy and horror that to confine yourself to even doing historical revisionist fiction, whatever you want to call it - mash-ups, gimmick lit, absurdist fiction - I don't know if I want to do that anymore.

I think a lot of musicians play for the playback. I mean, that's the joy of recording - you want to hear what you've done and what you've contributed - but never listening to that playback kind of removes the intellectual part of making music, and it removes the tendency to be revisionist.

When you go to college, and you talk about your college experience, there's a lot of revisionist history that goes along with it. You tend to think of yourself as, 'Oh, I got all of the girls. I was the best athlete on the team. I was a straight-A student.' And that's probably not the case.

We take from the art of the past what we need. The variable posthumous reputations of even the greatest artists and the unpredictable revivals of interest in even the most obscure ones tend to reveal more about those who make revisionist assessments than about those who are being reassessed.

When I was in college, my school newspaper accepted an ad from a Holocaust revisionist organization. This would have been offensive on most college campuses across the country, but I went to a school with a very large Jewish population, so the ad, as you might expect, stirred absolute outrage.

If the Democrats want to make an efficacy or merit-based argument with respect to the Electoral College, then by all means make it. It ought to be based in history and fact not fanciful revisionist history, and it should be made not just during an election year because of discontent with the electoral outcome.

Most academic historians accept that historians' own circumstances demand that they tell the story in a particular way, of course. While people wring their hands about 'revisionist' historians; on some level, the correction and amplification of various parts of the past is not 'revisionism' as it is simply the process of any historical writing.

Share This Page