Khuutra said:
So are you just trying to downplay the evils of revisionist history by pointing out that it's been done before (though serious historians do their best to revise historical accounts rather than events or personages themselves) or are you going so far as to suggest that revisionist history is the natural and proper course? Or, God help me, are you suggesting that we had a better and more complete rendition of history decades/centuries ago than we do now? |
He does have a point. History that's being revised in the history books, is already revised history.
Basically half truths are being replaced by half truths.