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?