Surprise, surprise, historical revisionism isn’t the bad guy
If I had a peso for every time I encountered “historical revisionism” on social media, I would probably have enough to cover my taxes for half a year. Seriously.
Most people use the term to refer to the act of deliberately twisting historical facts or the falsification of historical documents for nefarious reasons. However, after consulting with Luis Zuriel Domingo, a history lecturer-slash-budding academic historian, I can confirm that this is nothing but an absolute misconception.
“[Historians] don’t just invent narratives out of pure imagination. We cannot come up with sound narratives without the help of historical facts”
“Revisionism” vs. “denialism”
Contrary to popular belief, historical revisionism is a nonpartisan concept that has a rightful place in historiography. It’s the practice of amending existing narratives through the discovery of new factual evidence—and there’s a proper methodology for doing so. Newly found historical data would have to undergo “a long and rigorous process” before they are accepted as “facts,” Domingo says. For starters, historians must establish consensus among their peers. Various theories are also considered before ultimately choosing the most viable one for rewriting narratives.
“Unlike fiction writing, historians don’t just invent narratives out of pure imagination. We cannot come up with sound narratives without the help of historical facts,” the University of the Philippines Baguio lecturer explains
However, over time, historical revisionism has taken on a negative meaning: the process whereby “truth” is distorted mostly by pseudohistorians (or sometimes, by hyperpartisan groups) to further their agendas.
A good and pragmatic example of historical revisionism is the emergence of the “history from below” approach where historians “provide more space for the often overlooked figures in history—women, the masses, and the marginalized”
A far more accurate and descriptive term for this concept is “denialism” or “negationism,” which is the clear dismissal of historical narratives “for the sake of coming up with an extremely prejudiced historical interpretation or opinion,” according to Domingo. In other words, it is the act of twisting source materials to justify or glorify certain events and/or characters.
Exploring the concept of “revisionism”
A good and pragmatic example of historical revisionism is the emergence of the “history from below” approach where historians “provide more space for the often overlooked figures in history—women, the masses, and the marginalized.”
For instance, most narratives of the Industrial Revolution center on the inventors, leading engineers, and politicians who supported the shift to an engine-based economy. But thanks to the “history from below” method, a growing body of scholarship now addresses the role of the working class.
Another case in point is the portrayal of former president José P. Laurel in scholarly writings. According to Domingo, earlier history textbooks painted Laurel as a “mere puppet president or a wartime collaborator or traitor” during the Cold War.
“[Through] scholarship and newer interpretations, it has been proven that Laurel’s role during the war was more than significant to protect and save the Filipino people. If not for these branded collaborators who have ‘cooperated’ with the Japanese, [more] Filipinos could have perished in [their] hands,” elaborates Domingo.
“[In] history, nothing is final. We continue to revise as long as new historical facts are unearthed or made available”
Simply put, revisionism is a widely accepted practice in historical scholarship and writing. “[In] history, nothing is final. We continue to revise as long as new historical facts are unearthed or made available.”
The “denialist” phenomenon
Here’s a quick history refresher for anyone who needs it: the Holocaust (1941-1945) was the systematic state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of European Jews by the Nazi regime. During this period, an estimated six million Jews alongside other minorities were killed by the Germans—either directly (e.g. lethal injection) or indirectly (e.g. starvation)—under Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitic dictatorship. It’s one of the most horrifying events in modern world history.
However, despite the glaring evidence and testimonies from survivors, far-right group and Nazi sympathizers argue that the Holocaust was only a hoax created by the Jews. They even insist that the survivors were lying about their experiences of living in Nazi death camps.
“The rise of these conspiracy theories bolstered denialism; some thought that the Holocaust was only propaganda, more so, an invention of the United States and the former Soviet Union exaggerating the expulsion of the Jews in Germany then,” says Domingo.
As for the local context, Domingo considers the Martial Law years as the best example. “Many innocent lives were abused, captured, displaced, [and] tortured, [while some] even faced death,” he recalls. “Can you imagine, in 1972, historian William Henry Scott was accused of subversive activities and was ordered deported just because state forces found in his possession a book about the writings of Mao Zedong? Though he was not deported, he remained under military detention.”
(ICYDK, Mao Zedong was a communist leader and the founder of the People’s Republic of China. Ironically, he also took part in denialism: He ordered the censoring, banning, and burning of scholarly books and journals that were deemed inappropriate and anti-Communist—anything that would tarnish Mao’s dogma.)
Similar to the Holocaust, there are proof and survivor testimonies to back the Martial Law injustices. But what is a gruesome memory for its many victims continues to be the “golden age” for the denialists.
The dangers of historical denialism
You see, historical truth has many facets. While it may be true that some people benefited during the Martial Law period, denying the atrocities that were committed then means depriving the victims of the justice they’ve been waiting so long for. In similar fashion, claiming that the Holocaust was just make-believe and that the mass murder didn’t actually happen would insinuate that the Jews are “pathological liars and fundamentally dangerous,” further aggravating the discrimination they already suffer.
People also deny the existence of many other things such as evolution, climate change, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) even though there is enough evidence to prove them as scientific realities. All these acts of denial imply that we don’t only turn a blind eye to the plight of those who suffered (and are suffering), but we also lose out on a lot of knowledge that can push us forward in our development, whether it’s saving lives with new medical treatments or finding solutions to preserve the environment.
“Denying the future generation of the truth denies them the ability and power to direct our society towards a better future”
History is not the tale of some omniscient, perfect protagonist who did everything right, nor is it a glorified walk through a park where we marvel at statues of people who have long been gone. It is a chronicle of the good and the bad; the ups and downs and the triumphs and tragedies of our past. It serves as a solid reminder that we can only move forward if we start acknowledging the mistakes the previous generations have committed—because only then can we truly come up with ways on how to mitigate or prevent them from happening again.
For example, Germany has consistently been confronting its atrocious past in spite of some denialists. They’ve built a Holocaust memorial (a.k.a. the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe) and history museums that exhibit the brutality of Hitler’s regime and memorialize the lives of its victims. Prosecution authorities have also been working to bring surviving Holocaust perpetrators to justice. In fact, Germany (and several European countries) has already criminalized Holocaust denial and distortion, including racist and hate speech.
As Domingo concludes, “If we deny that these historical events happened despite clear evidence, we ‘veto’ the future generation of the truth—and with truth comes power. Denying the future generation of the truth denies them the ability and power to direct our society towards a better future.”