Revisionism

[Thomas MacWood]

This was what the president of the American Historical Association James McPherson said about revisionism in 2003:

"The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. "

Should golf architecture history have a different standard?

[JESII]

If there are no "single...immutable truths", I would ask what is the point of all the effort then...

[Mark Bourgeois]

There are facts and there are "truths."

Sully, what are the immutable truths that caused the Civil War, WWI, or the downfall of the Roman Empire?

Facts are subject to interpretation!

[David_Elvins]

what are the immutable truths that caused the Civil War, WWI, or the downfall of the Roman Empire?

THe Democrats



Seriously, thanks for the quote Tom,  McPherson expressed it very well.

[Jim Nugent]

There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning.

He may be right, though that's just an assumption.  How does he know? 

I think it's good to question things, especially establishment/consensus views.  My sense is that the political/social/economic/scientific/religious milieu has a bigger impact on historical revisionism than new sets of facts.  e.g. the USSR's view of history differed a whole lot from that generally believed in America.  And even within the U.S., the liberals and conservatives see history a whole lot differently. 

I very much liked the Merion threads.   

[Mike Sweeney]

I will always remember going through Checkpoint Charlie in 1984 and seeing "The East" interpretation of WW II at a museum on that side versus the museum on The West side at Brandenburg Gate. We had a woman who spoke and read German traveling with us. I wish I had kept notes because it would be interesting to go back today and see how things are interpreted in a unified Germany. I really want to get back to modern Berlin, because in 1984 it was the most unique place that I have ever been. For those unfamilar with Checkpoint Chairlie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_Charlie

I think the difference that people have to realize is that the are probably 200 people who REALLY care about who designed Merion GC and many of them are on here, so in a small group with  modern world instant communication, emotions get out of whack.

I think that is Tom Paul up at the top of The East, I mean Philadelphia guard tower with the machine gun!

This picture is from 1982 and it is how I remember Checkpoint Charlie.

[Chris Kane]

Of the places in visited in Europe last year, Berlin was probably the most fascinating.  Checkpoint Charlie now looks slightly different to your photo Mike!

[Melvyn Morrow]

These photos are you certain that’s Berlin     
Looks like London under our new
Prime Minister someone call Brown, Browne 
or something like that  - well, they say he is the PM  ,
but you can’t believe everything the Labour Party say  
or can you? 

[Thomas MacWood]

The two statements that standout to me :

* Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time.

* Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes.

[Mike Sweeney]

Checkpoint Charlie now looks slightly different to your photo Mike!

Chris,

We had a day visa that expired at midnight for The East, and we got lost around 11:00 PM trying to find Checkpoint Charlie from The East side. Trust me the Russian/East German guards at 11:50 PM did not look like that baby faced kid in that picture!

[TEPaul]

Regarding historic revisionism there's a wonderful book and tape by a professor Loewen entitled "The Lies we were taught in school."

There is some really wonderful and plenty of pretty shocking stuff in there.

Here's one interesting example:

One of the "truths" many of us grew up with such as when Columbus sailed the ocean blue everyone in the world back then (except perhaps him) thought his ships would probably fall off the earth because it was flat.

But Loewen explained that there probably never was a sailor with experience who did not notice that as you watch a ship at sea you can't help but see it and then its mast slowly sink from view over the horizon so of course no experienced sailor believed the earth was flat and a ship would fall off the edge of it.

Columbus first sailed in 1492 so according to Loewen where did that notion that the earth was flat and that a ship could fall off it come from? It came from Washington Irving who wrote that in 1888, about four hundred years later, perhaps as some child's story and it was picked up and taught to many of us in school as a fact of what people thought long ago. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hmmm,

A story told several years later, despite the facts that were well known to people of the time that gets it wrong and yet persists for centuries.......

That at the very least makes a case for the continued questioning of "what we know" as suggested by Tom Mac in the beginning of the thread, even if it involves one of our beloved courses, no?

[Sean_A]

Regarding historic revisionism there's a wonderful book and tape by a professor Loewen entitled "The Lies we were taught in school."

There is some really wonderful and plenty of pretty shocking stuff in there.

Here's one interesting example:

One of the "truths" many of us grew up with such as when Columbus sailed the ocean blue everyone in the world back then (except perhaps him) thought his ships would probably fall off the earth because it was flat.

But Loewen explained that there probably never was a sailor with experience who did not notice that as you watch a ship at sea you can't help but see it and then its mast slowly sink from view over the horizon so of course no experienced sailor believed the earth was flat and a ship would fall off the edge of it.

Columbus first sailed in 1492 so according to Loewen where did that notion that the earth was flat and that a ship could fall off it come from? It came from Washington Irving who wrote that in 1888, about four hundred years later, perhaps as some child's story and it was picked up and taught to many of us in school as a fact of what people thought long ago. 

TomP

Thats interesting because my take on the flat issue is slightly different.  I think most proper sailors accepted in THEORY that the world wasn't flat.  However, the theory hadn't been properly tested until the age of Columbus so the fear of a flat earth was not completely unjustified.  Its not too different from what you say, but the nuance is an important distinction worth noting.

Revisionism has a bad rap because that will always be the case when the new historians make their name based on new concepts.  It always has been so and always will be so.  Revisionism in and of itself is neither bad nor good.  Its the ideas presented which should be judged.

Ciao

[Kirk Gill]

What's interesting to me is the notion that a new "truth" can emerge that renders previously believed truths to be unimportant, wrong, misguided, etc. I believe that the mindsets that believed these previous truths to also be part of the historical record, and that there's often no objective way to determine that one perception of history to be more true than another.

"Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"?"

Isn't it possible that they were both of these things, at once? Doesn't one interpretation or another imply some historical "truths" about the person who renders that opinion? Are we to disregard the notion of these individuals as "Captains of Industry" simply because a different historical perspective paints them in a different light?

Think of the Socialism that existed in this country prior to the Russian Revolution and WWI. It's surprising sometimes to find out what kind of people espoused Socialist philosophies at the time, due to the way that philosophy is perceived today. But were those who espoused it back then morons? Were they misguided? Were they just wrong? Or could it be that their positions at that time regarding that philosphy were based in a "truth" that, if examined, tells us a lot about the world they lived in?

Of course, this is different than the unearthing of new facts that might completely contradict previously accepted interpretations of history. But as Mark Bourgeois said earlier, "There are facts and there are "truths," and "Facts are subject to interpretation!"

I've always thought that when someone uses the term "revisionist history" that they are talking about a re-writing of history not based on either new facts or new "truths," but about a re-writing of history to support a current agenda. One can't help but be suspicious of someone who writes about history with an eye towards proving some theory, as opposed to someone who finds out as many facts as possible, reviews the perceived "truths" about that history that can be ascertained, and then develops a theory based on that research.

The difficulty there, of course, is telling the difference between the two !

[Bob_Huntley]

I will always remember going through Checkpoint Charlie in 1984 and seeing "The East" interpretation of WW II at a museum on that side versus the museum on The West side at Brandenburg Gate. We had a woman who spoke and read German traveling with us. I wish I had kept notes because it would be interesting to go back today and see how things are interpreted in a unified Germany. I really want to get back to modern Berlin, because in 1984 it was the most unique place that I have ever been. For those unfamilar with Checkpoint Chairlie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_Charlie

I think the difference that people have to realize is that the are probably 200 people who REALLY care about who designed Merion GC and many of them are on here, so in a small group with  modern world instant communication, emotions get out of whack.

I think that is Tom Paul up at the top of The East, I mean Philadelphia guard tower with the machine gun!

This picture is from 1982 and it is how I remember Checkpoint Charlie.

Mike,

Some time ago  I was travelling from Munich to Berlin and went through the checkpoint in Leipzig.

Stopped the car, mirrors under the chassis, dogs, that sort of thing. Went inside to display my passport, (Rhodesian at the time) to a rather large female Sturm-trooper type who may well have been a lady wrestler. She pointed to the 'Occupation' entry and asked in German what 'Stockbroker' meant. I hurriedly replied "Capitalist." The look I got would have fried bacon but she waved me on.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

While not the most scholarly, and reflects my attempt to get at the generally accepted known facts without producing some manner of original research (this ain't no term paper  ) i can't help but look at this in the context of the well known controversy and progression of the famous case of Galileo.  Thus, my cut and paste of Wikipedia, if you scholarly types will allow the lift.

In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments"[95] His close advisor of 40 years, Professor Robert Leiber wrote: "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors (to science) prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo."[96]

On February 15, 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome,[97] Cardinal Ratzinger cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today."[98] Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”[99] The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views".[98]

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[100][101]

Therein is an exemplary  progression of how facts developed from painstaking  research and cold mathmatical figuring and formulation from the ancients like Copernicus through Cassini and the moderns, juxtatposed and at odds with dogma by a powerful institution like the Church, can be understood as the good and bad effects of revisionism. 

It seems to me, you have the facts developed by the science and work of the historical mathematicians like Capernicus and Galileo, that took the form of revisionism to the accepted dogma and imposition on the society of the all powerful institutional Church, then the upstarts where persecuted for their revisionism of 'heliocentrism' and who used the facts to prove their case, but insulted the conventional dogma of the Church.  It took hundreds of years for the institution to recognise the error and injustice of the persecution of the revisionist factual and scientifically valid methods of the reserachers.  Then, after the institution of the Church through the offices of Pope Pius XII and JP II finally make the appology and formal recognition of the revisionist yet irrefutable science of those persecuted, another anti-revisionist comes along in Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope Bennie XVI, to ironically use the philosopher of science advocate Feyerabend's words for reversion from open mindedness to actually embrace a closed minded and backward thinking manner, trying to prove that the Church was justified by using the quote out of context.   It is like the nexus of the Bushies to Evangelicalism, and resistence to hard science that points us to the merit of stem cell research or forcing education back to creationism. 

As for this thread, now... I am happy to see Tom MacWood back.  I respect that he posts the quote and comment about revisionism as perhaps an insight as to what he believes and what motivates him to research and discuss his thoughts on our subject of GCA historically speaking.  I try to read his thoughts and David M's in an open minded manner, and give respect to their observations, as I do the traditionalist defenders of the history, as it has been known.  Fortunately, our subject is that of a hobby, and doesn't rise to the question of how our planet, sun and galaxy travel through space and time.  Thus, the participant's POVs are and should be taken with good cheer, pleasant discussion, and sifting and winnowing... not vitriole.  I think those lessons, if gleaned from the quotes, would go a long way...

[TEPaul]

"I've always thought that when someone uses the term "revisionist history" that they are talking about a re-writing of history not based on either new facts or new "truths," but about a re-writing of history to support a current agenda. One can't help but be suspicious of someone who writes about history with an eye towards proving some theory, as opposed to someone who finds out as many facts as possible, reviews the perceived "truths" about that history that can be ascertained, and then develops a theory based on that research."


Kirk:

I think that's a very fine paragraph there on your part. As I've been using the term "revisionist" about this recent essay on the creation of Merion that's the way I've been using the term and thinking about it.

I mean the premise of that essay seems to be that Hugh Wilson was just too much the novice to route and design Merion East, therefore the conclusion seems to be that Macdonald/Whigam must have done it despite the obviousness that the facts in the chronology of how it played out just don't seem to indicate that. So, we really aren't trying to find some "Truth" or eternal truth in this matter it's basically just a fact of whether Macdonald did what the essay suggests or not. We just don't think he did and we think all the available evidence suggests that unless someone really tries to completely torture the meaning of the words written by those there at the time including the board and the committees of MCC.

I think it's just about as basic as that and frankly I can't really figure out why these two guys went off on this years long jag that Macdonald's roll was ever minimized. The events and the words attached to them when that event was taking place don't suggest that at all.


By the way, I went through that old "Check Point Charlie" the day after Nixon resigned from office. A pretty interesting and significant day it was too even in Berlin. Also, the super stark difference between West Berlin and East Berlin was like looking at yesterday and tomorrow and all within about a block. West Berlin was really vibrant and East Berlin was pretty spooky with almost no cars and a whole lot of visible shrapnel scars in numerous buildings from WW2.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ - good post, as always.

Kirk, TE - that reminds me of reading "The Spy who Came in from the Cold". I think it was written in the very early 50s, and captured (accurately, it turned out) the nature and ethos of the Cold War, a nature and ethos that by the time the Cold War ended in the mid-1980s had been re-interpreted and revised several times.  I'm no expert about that era at all, but it seems to me that this is one example of the man who was there at the time getting it absolutely right, the first time.

Peter     

[George Pazin]

What's interesting to me is the notion that a new "truth" can emerge that renders previously believed truths to be unimportant, wrong, misguided, etc. I believe that the mindsets that believed these previous truths to also be part of the historical record, and that there's often no objective way to determine that one perception of history to be more true than another.

"Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"?"

Isn't it possible that they were both of these things, at once? Doesn't one interpretation or another imply some historical "truths" about the person who renders that opinion? Are we to disregard the notion of these individuals as "Captains of Industry" simply because a different historical perspective paints them in a different light?

Think of the Socialism that existed in this country prior to the Russian Revolution and WWI. It's surprising sometimes to find out what kind of people espoused Socialist philosophies at the time, due to the way that philosophy is perceived today. But were those who espoused it back then morons? Were they misguided? Were they just wrong? Or could it be that their positions at that time regarding that philosphy were based in a "truth" that, if examined, tells us a lot about the world they lived in?

Of course, this is different than the unearthing of new facts that might completely contradict previously accepted interpretations of history. But as Mark Bourgeois said earlier, "There are facts and there are "truths," and "Facts are subject to interpretation!"

I've always thought that when someone uses the term "revisionist history" that they are talking about a re-writing of history not based on either new facts or new "truths," but about a re-writing of history to support a current agenda. One can't help but be suspicious of someone who writes about history with an eye towards proving some theory, as opposed to someone who finds out as many facts as possible, reviews the perceived "truths" about that history that can be ascertained, and then develops a theory based on that research.

The difficulty there, of course, is telling the difference between the two !

Helluva post, nicely done.

[DMoriarty]

I've always thought that when someone uses the term "revisionist history" that they are talking about a re-writing of history not based on either new facts or new "truths," but about a re-writing of history to support a current agenda.

The difficulty there, of course, is telling the difference between the two !

But is not the opposite more often the case? 

-- Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will misread, misunderstand, ignore, and/or conceal new facts that do not fit in with the old version?
 
-- Those that want to hold onto the old "truths"will exaggerate, misconstrue and/or misstate the new "truths" in order to make them less palatable than if presented honestly.

-- Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will try to control the conversation by censorship--  controlling the dissemination of facts that might not fit into the old dogma.

-- Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will vilify and ostracize those with the new ideas, painting them as dangerous, misguided, careless, unintelligent, uneducated, inexperienced, outsiders, unwelcome, prying, rabble-rousers trying to upset the comfortable order, people who have overstepped their social status. 

I can think of historical examples of everyone of these things and more.   I am not sure I can think of many historical examples of those whose truths should be dismissed solely because of their agenda's regardless of the soundness of their research and analysis. 

One can't help but be suspicious of someone who writes about history with an eye towards proving some theory, as opposed to someone who finds out as many facts as possible, reviews the perceived "truths" about that history that can be ascertained, and then develops a theory based on that research.

It is extremely easy and quite attractive to simply dismiss someone with new or groundbreaking ideas that rock our comfortable and familiar boat.   The easy way is with a blanket questioning of their motives, because oftentimes the ideas are so different that what is excepted that one must think there is some ulterior agenda is afoot, whether it is or not.    Or the ideas have been resisted so stongly that one assumes that the person who keeps at it must be driven by hatred and revenge rather than the truth.

But what does the agenda matter anyway?   What if the person is TOTALLY agenda driven, yet his research sound and facts accurate.   Should his theories be dismissed, and if so, on what basis?  If the facts support the theories, what is the basis for denying its validity. 

What if Galileo was motivated by a hatred for the church?  Does that justify his persecution?  Should discount his theories?

So what if Socrates was motivated by a view that the city-state had been corrupted by conventions passing as truths?   Should we ignore his teaching?  Was the city right to require his death? 

Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those who are hell bent on shooting down new theories, whether they have the facts to do so or not? 

Shouldn't we be suspicious of those who declare theories false and then try to find the facts to support this?

Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those who repeatedly misconstrue and misrepresent the views of others to make their point? 

Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those who backtrack and refortify to protect the old guard with each advancement of truth.

Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those with almost a mythical devotion the old truth, as if the old "truth" were JFK or some other Martyred figure too sacred to be exposed the harsh light of critical review? 

Shouldn't we be more suspicious of those with a track record of misunderstanding, misrepresenting and concealing the truth in the name of protecting the old truth? 

[Sean_A]

I've always thought that when someone uses the term "revisionist history" that they are talking about a re-writing of history not based on either new facts or new "truths," but about a re-writing of history to support a current agenda. One can't help but be suspicious of someone who writes about history with an eye towards proving some theory, as opposed to someone who finds out as many facts as possible, reviews the perceived "truths" about that history that can be ascertained, and then develops a theory based on that research.

The difficulty there, of course, is telling the difference between the two !

Kirk

Sure, revisionism is used in the manner you describe.  However, let us not forget that everybody has an agenda.  That isn't necessarily to say they are paid off, bought or even more biased then the next guy.  Just that agendas exist in all things to do with researching and reporting history.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Kirk:

#14 sure is a helluva post. It needs to be read a few times and very seriously considered. Nicely done indeed!

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

There are historians who say that Shakesphere didn't really write Shakesphere, and they can argue their point with great alacrity and quite convincing evidence. But I have the hardest time accepting what they say simply because of the fact that so many people living in his day believed that Shakesphere wrote Shakesphere. These historians are asking me to believe that they are smarter than all those people? That's why I call it chronological snobery. Because it so often insults the intelligence of the very people who were born in another century.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

But let me add that I have learned a lot from your contributions to GCA and I hope you will continue to post here from time to time. I think your work is just outstanding. I don't even mind saying that you caught me on the construction schedule of Sunningdale. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Revisionist history is most commonly used as a pejorative term today. Probably the example most often cited is Holocaust denial. The use of the term on GCA has definitely been in the negative sense - used often as a hammer on the Merion thread. It appears the goal is to maliciously link honest attempts to uncover new facts and interpret those facts with those nephareous revisionists who have denied well documented events like the Holocaust. It is an all too common ploy today used by those with an agenda (and not just on GCA). I suspect James McPherson's comments were in response to the over use of the pejorative term.

In addition to the Holocaust revisionists, other famous examples are the denial of the Japanese war crimes against the Chinese and the Armenian Genocide. What these famous examples have in common is they attempt to re-write history by ignoring or minimizing well documented facts. The opposite is true on GCA, those using the term use it against those who are introducing new facts, facts that may challenge their favorite often told stories and legends.

Golf architecture is relatively new discipline, studying and documenting golf architecture history is even newer. We have just scratched the surface when it comes to documenting and analysing the history of golf architecture (especially in comparison to other similar disciplines). In the past few years an amazing number of new facts have to come to light, and I am confident new facts will continue to be discovered. IMO it is the duty of those interested golf architecture history to interpret these new facts and revise history accordingly.

Generally most on GCA don't have problem with these discoveries and revisions, however there is one group that does have problem, ironcially only as it relates to their closely held legends, and they are the ones who use the term most often.