Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

Ken wrote ...

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it.

Without getting into the particulars of the debate starring Mr. Cottrell, et
al, I'd like to know just what the hell is wrong with "revisionist history?"

I don't know what your connection to Oregon State is, but if you're around
the campus, go ask someone (ideally a tenured faculty member) in the history
department what "revisionist history" is.

You'll likely find that history gets "revised" because of a few things, but
first and foremost is the revelation of new information.

To be against revising history to reflect the totality of the fact base for
the subject in question is either ignorant, stupid, moronic, or some
combination of all three.

Some groups may be happy with the stories as told in the "first draft," but
that first telling rarely reflects the totality of the situation. History
itself is "argument without end" (1) and to halt that argument because
something new may not fit with a power group's established paradigm is
intellectually abhorrent.

Dan
(1) Pieter Geyl