Historical Revisionism: How we change the past, for better or for worse

    At the beginning of my sophomore year's fall semester, I was told to write a background guide for USU’s Model UN club. We were planning to host a  conference for High Schoolers, and since I was to be in charge of the Historical Crisis committee, I was told to write the background guide for it. The topic was that of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the start of the First World War. While researching it, I found a lot of evidence that the dual monarchy was not as backwards as often stereotyped in pop history. Later, while beginning to research for this very essay, I stumbled across an article entitled “Holocaust revisionism and its Political Consequences”, by Jurgen Graf. As I started reading this, I quickly got the impression that this essay was the work of holocaust deniers. I looked up Jurgen Graf, and surprise, the bastard was one of the premier Holocaust deniers, which is a criminal offense in some countries as well. 

    While both experiences might seem weird at first glance, they are both good examples of what is known as Historical Revisionism. Historical revisionism, at its most fundamental understanding, is the reexamination of historical events, either because of new evidence, or due to observing said event through different perspectives, which in turn leads to a new understanding of history. An important part of historiography, we should do a better job differentiating between what is considered ‘Historical Revisionism’ and that of ‘Historical Distortion’, because failure to do so or having a poor understanding of it can lead to history being weaponized in ways to either deny atrocities or to exclude identities from historical narratives.

    To understand this topic, we must observe it both in its correct application and that of it being misused. One particularly good example of historical revisionism can be observed through the academic article: “A Climate for Abduction, a Climate for Redemption - The Politics of Inclusion During and After the Armenian Genocide”, written by Lerna Ekmekcioglu, a professor of history at MIT. In it, Ekmekcioglu examines the Armenian genocide, but more specifically a part that can be uncomfortable to talk about; that of sexual violence committed by Turks against Armenian women. More specifically, she talks about two major aspects: that of how Armenian women were abducted into Turkish society, and how Armenian women were returned to Armenian hands. Perhaps one of the biggest aspects is motherhood in connection to ethnicity. 

    Within the article, she recounts one Armenian woman’s memory of another Armenian woman. An Armenian woman who was pregnant with a Turkish child (strongly implied to be because of rape), sought an abortion. Armenian authorities actually denied her that, eventually leading to the child’s birth, and the mother’s suicide not long after. But this is where it gets interesting; “Why did the Armenian authorities deny X an abortion? Why did the expectant mother's perception of the fetus as ‘the continuation of the vojrakordz (criminal)’ conflict so profoundly with what Kalemkiarian and other relief workers saw in such babies, whose ‘chirping cries elevated [their] souls.’ At first glance, Kalemkiarian's view may seem puzzling because both Muslims and Christians had long believed, and the law endorsed, that a baby belonged to its father and his group. Yet the Armenian National Relief Committee, the umbrella organization in charge of providing relief to refugees in Istanbul, referred to babies of Muslim fatherhood as ‘our orphans’ (mervorpere). What conditioned the decision to render fatherhood irrelevant in determining Armenianess?” (Ekmekcioglu, 2013)

    Ekmekcioglu explains that in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide, and with questions of an Armenian state, there was a need for a larger, ethnically Armenian population, which has been sufficiently curtailed by a genocide by the Ottoman government. This meant that if the rules of ethnicity of fatherhood determining ethnicity were followed in the wake of many Armenian women being sexually assaulted, and thus carrying children with Turkish fathers, the children would be Turkish. By saying that it’s the mother who determines ethnicity, these children are in essence, redeemed, being Armenians. This also gives Armenian women some form of leverage within Armenian society, albeit limited, and temporarily.

    This all relates back to Revisionist History. In essence, Ekmekcioglu examines a major historical event, the Armenian genocide and its aftermath, through new lenses, that of Armenian women. This helps to form a new understanding of said historical event. By observing the Armenian genocide through this lens of Armenian women, and the redemption of their children, we get a glimpse into both the horror of the genocide, and a look at the nationbuilding that followed.

    Another, more mundane examination can be done with media. Confronting the Moral Frames of Popular Film: Young People Respond to Historical Revisionism is another academic article, written by Peter Seixas, who was an assistant professor in the Department of Social and Social Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia. Peter Seixas is renowned for helping in the formation of how history is learned and interpreted in the Canadian schooling system, enough so that even though the article is from the 90s, it still holds up quite well. In essence, Seixas does a study with various students, in which the 1990 film Dancing with Wolves, and the 1956 The Searchers were watched. Both films discuss and examine White-Indian relations during the 1860s, but come to sufficiently different conclusions, with Dancing with Wolves being much more sympathetic to American Indians, while The Searchers is considered one of, if not the most, anti-Indian films. The students were first shown Dancing with Wolves, before being shown The Searchers. 

    Seixas noted that the students upon the initial viewing of Dances with Wolves, they took it uncritically, but upon viewing the more dated The Searchers, they viewed The Searchers as a product of the 50s, with its portrayal of American indians as wild savages, but also viewed Dancing with Wolves as a product of the 90s, a portrayal of American indians as noble savages. “At that point they needed either to justify their belief in the film as history, to abandon it, or at least to acknowledge the unanswered questions that had not even occurred to them on the first viewing.” (Seixas, 1994) By viewing how pop media such as films portrayed history in the past, the students were able to understand that modern interpretations are just that, modern interpretations. This is important as it means that when we view historical revisionism in this lens, we get a more nuanced understanding of history, as well as how our understanding of it changes. 

    Of course, viewing history through different lenses isn't the only way we can look at historical revisionism. Historical revisionism correctly done can also help to acknowledge the atrocities of the past, which in turn can help us move on. One example is in connection with a documentary film, Tantura, which in turn, is drawn upon one such example of revisionist history. In the late 90s, Israeli researcher Teddy Katz wrote a master’s degree thesis for the University of Haifa, discussing the massacre of Arab civilians in the village of Tantura by the Alexandroni Brigade during the Israeli war of Independence. When it was published in 2000 by the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the veterans of the Alexandroni Brigade sued him for defamation, and following that, a lot of “fun shenanigans” occurred, including Katz being pressured into signing a letter of retraction stating that the massacre did not happen, which he then fought back against, only to lose in court, as his main form of research, tape recordings from both Israeli and Arab sources, were disregarded.

    This leads to the film, where filmmaker Alon Schwarz digitized and listened to all 140 hours worth of these recordings. These recordings, alongside archival work from the Israeli Defence Forces and interviews done with Katz, another historian, Ilan Pappe, and veterans round out the film. Schwarz argues that if Israeli society cannot come to terms with what Arabs called the Nakba (catastrophe), or the displacement of Arabs from what we now consider the modern borders of Israel, then Israel will have a hard time finding itself in the future. Or as the Israeli journalist Renee Ghert-Zand wrote of this “Israelis and tourists who visit the popular Dor Beach, near where Tantura once stood, might want to know that there is possibly (if not probably) a mass grave beneath the parking lot.” (Ghert-Zand, 2022) I think most people can probably agree, that it might be good to know if your parking spot is someone’s final resting spot. But it’s beyond the idea of parking places. Revisionist history like this challenges traditional founding myths, which in turn means that societies can develop and grow because of it. 

    However, like coins, Historical Revisionism is double-sided, and a methodology that can help us acknowledge our past, and give us a more nuanced look can do the opposite. For example, it should be noted that many older interpretations of history sometimes were at one point revisionist history. Many of these interpretations oftentimes covered up atrocities or excluded people from the historical narrative. Some noticeable examples of revisionist history that has done these are the Lost Cause myth (whenever you hear “the Civil War was about state’s rights, not slavery”) and the Clean Wehrmacht myth (whenever you hear “Most German soldiers in the second World War were not Nazis, and were not involved in any war crimes”). That said, both of these have been challenged. My home state of Virginia is one such area where the discussion about the Lost Cause and the Civil War have been… contentious. The clean wehrmacht myth has been debated and slowly getting put to rest since the 80s, with the most recent addition to this conversation being that of the Afrika Korp in the North Africa campaigns. 

    That said, one major form of improper use of historical revisionism can be found under the sadly broad umbrella that is Holocaust distortion. Austrian-Israeli writer Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote an article entitled “The Multiple Distortions of Holocaust Memory” for the Jewish Political Studies Review. Within it, Gerstenfeld discussed the many forms that Holocaust distortion takes. These include holocaust denial (“the holocaust never happened”), holocaust promotion (“the Jews deserved it”), holocaust depreciation (“the holocaust wasn’t that bad”) and memory abuse (“Jews abuse the memory of the holocaust to their advantage”). If you read those, I’m willing to bet that a lot of them felt off, felt wrong to hear. Gerstenfeld explores the numerous ways that historical revisionism can be used to deny atrocities, especially for modern political gains. Quoting Gerstenfeld “ One category of motivation for Holocaust distortion is political, which varies according to the perpetrators. A second type of motivation has anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli origins. A third involves absolving one's predecessors of national or personal guilt.” (Gerstenfeld, 2007)  For example, Gerstenfeld definitely notes how a lot of holocaust distortions are done by Arab states to discuss the modern Israeli state. Regardless of your personal opinion in regards to both Israel and the Palestinian question, it must be acknowledged that a lot of anti-Israel arguments are oftentimes fueled by these holocaust distortions.

    That said, one reason why many cases of historical revisionism might be rejected, is because how we view history, might also affect how we view our own nation’s history. Historical interpretation is critical to forming “National narratives”, as well as historical mythologies. While earlier, I mentioned several historical myths that are exclusionary and explicitly bad, not all historical myths are as egregious as that, and many historical myths are just as much historical revisionism as the revisionism that reexamines those myths. A more benign example is that of the ANZAC legend, oftentimes called the ANZAC Spirit by supporters, and the ANZAC Myth by critics. The idea argues that Australian and New Zealand soldiers possess shared characteristics; endurance, courage, ingenuity, good humour, larrikinism (mischievous, but otherwise good natured), and mateship/comradeship; that were solidified during the First World War, and oftentimes in the face of a more stoic and rigid British high command. The idea was largely spread by Charles Bean, the official historian for the Australian forces during the First World War. However, in the aftermath of the world wars and especially Vietnam, a reexamining of it occurred, namely in the eyes of the idea of colonialism and imperialism, as both Australia and New Zealand participated in both world wars as a colony for an imperial power, in what can be easily argued to be imperial conflicts. 

    This later led to a play being written in New Zealand during the 80s, Once on Chunuk Bair, by Maurice Shadbolt. The play follows a group of New Zealand soldiers of the Wellington battalion, as they participate, and ultimately die on Chunuk Bair, one of the hills surrounding the Dardanelles during the Gallipoli campaign. It was well-received, and has become a common play to put on in High Schools in New Zealand, as well as having a film version released, which wasn’t as well received (although I have actually seen the film version, and thought it was fine).The play however, has helped revitalise the ANZAC legend, largely through it’s framing. Janet Wilson, an Emerita Professor of English and Postcolonial Studies, Faculty of Arts, Science and Technology, University of Northampton, and an expert on postcolonial New Zealand literature wrote about both the play and the broader ANZAC myth surrounding it, in a Journal of New Zealand Literature article, titled ‘Colonize. Pioneer. Bash and slash’: Once on Chunuk Bair and the Anzac Myth.

    “Shadbolt’s comment that 'Once on Chunuk Bair’ is only ostensibly about New Zealand’s fatal day on Chunuk Bair on August 8, 1915. It was really about New Zealanders — and New Zealand — seventy years on’, has found general agreement: the play speaks more to its contemporary moment than to the events it commemorates.” (Wilson) Essentially, Wilson argues that the play, while commemorating the New Zealander ANZACs, is also just as much a reexamination of New Zealand post-Vietnam, and its part in it, is to revitalize the ANZAC myth. A huge part of it is by the play essentially reframing the attack and battle as for the New Zealanders, not as much for the British, with one of the final scenes in the film production basically outright stating the phrase “They went up as British, and they died there as New Zealanders.

    Now, one might wonder why this matters beyond the dry walls of academia? After all, most people aren’t going to become scholars, discussing complex historical narratives and contrasting ideas with other academics. Perhaps not, but as you may have noticed, a lot of the talk of historical revisionism, both good and bad, are intrinsically linked with the realm of politics. And I can assure you, I have seen these effects with my own eyes. Ever since October of 2023, I have seen a plethora of bad historical takes, justifying either Israel or Palestine, ranging from “Palestinians rejected the land deal that split the region” (ignoring the fact that they had legitimate complaints about it), to “Israel is an illegitimate, settler state” (a Jewish claim has long existed in the region). A lot of these bad takes fall firmly within the realm of bad historical revisionism. I also have seen cases where a rejection of historical revisionism occurred.

    Comparatively recently, I have seen a meme in regards to a massacre committed by French police against Algerians in Paris, 1961, an event that while massive, was woefully underreported, with next to no international media coverage. It was styled in the way of “never ask ____ about something that would be embarrassing or anger them,” with the punchline being something along the lines of “Never ask the Paris police what they did in 1961”, with the implication of it being said massacre. I made the poor decision to check the comment section, whereupon I found that a shocking amount of the comments were insisting that the massacre never happened, and that it was simply made up by communists and islamists to make France look bad. (it should be worth noting that the Algerian independence movement within which this massacre was committed against were neither islamists nor communists, but were probably more comparable to a nationalist movement)

    I believe part of that is because France, for the most part, doesn’t talk about the broader conflict this massacre occurred within, that of the Algerian war of independence. In turn, most of the world, aside from Algeria, doesn’t really talk about it either. So, when presented with the idea that France did such an act, many people immediately go to conclusions that it was staged, or that it never happened. I’d also personally wager that some of it might be to hide islamophobic and anti-North African/Arab sentiments. This is why historical revisionism is important, and critical for us all, but especially for those who wish to study or teach history. 

    Simply put, history needs to constantly be reexamined, both to help acknowledge the past, as well as how our identities interact with the past. And we in turn, need to be observant of these changes, as well as recognizing when we are being duped by those who wish to use the past to justify their own nefarious viewpoints. It is often said that history repeats itself, but I think that is misleading. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the only way to change this “rhyming”, is to start understanding why it rhymes in the first place. 

Sources:

• EKMEKCIOGLU, LERNA. “A Climate for Abduction, a Climate for Redemption: The Politics of Inclusion during and after the Armenian Genocide.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 55, no. 3, 2013, pp. 522–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23526015.
• Gerstenfeld, Manfred. “THE MULTIPLE DISTORTIONS OF HOLOCAUST MEMORY.” Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 19, no. 3/4, 2007, pp. 35–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25834750. 
• Ghert-Zand, Renee. “‘Tantura’ Director: Israelis Have Been Lied to for Years about Alleged 1948 Massacre | The Times of Israel.” Times of Israel, January 27, 2022. https://www.timesofisrael.com/tantura-director-israelis-have-been-lied-to-for-years-about-alleged-1948-massacre/.
• Seixas, Peter. “Confronting the Moral Frames of Popular Film: Young People Respond to Historical Revisionism.” American Journal of Education, vol. 102, no. 3, 1994, pp. 261–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085738.
• Wilson, Janet. “‘Colonize. Pioneer. Bash and Slash’: Once on Chunuk Bair and the Anzac Myth.” Journal of New Zealand Literature (JNZL), no. 34.1, 2016, pp. 27–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/90000545.