Quote:
Originally Posted by Karsten Heidt
Our interest is in uniforms and history, not.........revisionism.
|
Speak for yourself, without 'revisionism' there is stagnation in the historical record.
Take for example the French expedition to climb Annapurna in 1950. The leader, Maurice Herzog, made the other climbers sign a document that forbade them to write about the expedition for five years. So, for a period of time there was one version of the story for public consumption. When the others finally wrote their books, the extra details and different perspectives altered the 'official' story so as to make it almost unrecognizable. Would any sane person label the other climbers by a moniker to discredit them......no, why would they? So, why do it in this context?
As a famous person once said (can't remember who), ''History is just an agree upon set of lies''. If a writer or historian wants to swim against the current of 'conventional truth' why is it attacked. Go to any decent used book shop and buy a dozen books on the Kennedy assassination. You'll get twelve different 'revisions' of the official Warren Commission conclusions. Should those authors be labelled with a derisive name too?