American Historical=20 Association

Home
- Search = Web Site
- Site=20 Map
About Us
- What = We Do
  - Leadership=20 & Advocacy
  - P= rofessional=20 Issues
  - Teaching=20 Matters
  - Publications
  - Press=20 Room
- Who We = Are
  - Governance
  - Staff=20 (Contact Us)
  - Coalitions
  - Affiliated=20 Societies
- History of the=20 AHA
  - AHA = Archives=20
Membership
- Individual=20 Members
- Department and=20 Organization Services Program
  - DOSP Member=20 Login
- Institutiona= l=20 Subscriptions
Annual = Meeting
- Registration
  - Exhibits=20
  - Job=20 Center
  - Meeting=20 Program
- Past = Meetings
- Future = Meetings
  - Submitting=20 Proposals
Prizes = &=20 Fellowships
- Prizes = &=20 Fellowships Overview
  - Honorific=20 Awards
  - Awards for=20 Distinction
  - Past=20 Winners
  - Gutenberg-e= =20 Award
- Research = Grants
  - Recent=20 Recipients
- Fellowships=
  - Recent = Recipients
- Other=20 Grants and Prizes (not awarded by AHA)
Jobs & = Careers
- Job=20 Advertisements
- Careers
  - for=20 History Majors
  - for=20 Graduate Students
Publications
- American = Historical=20 Review
  - Subscription= s
- Perspectives=20 on History
  - Current = Issue
  - Past=20 Issues
- Advertising
  - Mailing=20 Lists
- Publications=20 Catalog
- Directory=20 of Grants, Fellowships, and Prizes
- Directory=20 of History Departments and Organizations
  - List in=20 the Directory
- Other = Online=20 Publications
Add'l=20 Resources
- P= rofessional=20 Issues
- Resource=20 Guides
- Dissertat= ion=20 Directory
- History=20 Doctoral Programs
- Links = to Other=20 Organizations
- History = Meetings=20 & Events

Perspectives

News= =20 Briefs
Current = Issue
Past=20 Issues=20
Subm= issions=20
A= dvertising=20
Cont= act=20
_____________

From the President's=20 column column of the September 2003 Perspectives

Revisionist Historians

By James McPherson

This summer the Bush administration thought it had discovered a = surefire=20 tactic to discredit critics of its Iraq adventure. President Bush = followed the=20 lead of his national security adviser Condoleeza Rice to accuse such = critics of=20 practicing "revisionist history." Neither Bush nor Rice offered a = definition of=20 this phrase, but their body language and tone of voice appeared to = suggest that=20 they wanted listeners to understand "revisionist history" to be a = consciously=20 falsified or distorted interpretation of the past to serve partisan or=20 ideological purposes in the present. Or did George Bush and Condoleeza = Rice mean=20 to suggest only that those who now criticize the administration's Iraq = policy=20 have revised their earlier opinions? But few if any have done so. Almost = all the=20 historians I know of who maintain that the evidence for Iraq's weapons = of mass=20 destruction or support for Al Qaeda is ambiguous or false were saying = the same=20 things six months or a year ago. All who then insisted that Iraq posed = little=20 threat to the United States or its allies and that a war with Iraq would = endanger American lives, security, and national interest far more than a = continuation of the policy of containment and UN inspections, have not = changed=20 their position.

Whatever Bush and Rice meant by "revisionist historians," it is safe = to say=20 that they did not mean it favorably. The 14,000 members of this = Association,=20 however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. = History=20 is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. = Interpretations of=20 the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new = questions asked=20 of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There = is no=20 single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their = meaning. The=20 unending quest of historians for understanding the past=E2=80=94that is, = "revisionism"=E2=80=94is what makes history vital and meaningful. = Without revisionism,=20 we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American = Civil War=20 that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and = Claude=20 Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs = "Captains of=20 Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have = done=20 research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would = remain=20 mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions = often=20 reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the=20 Constitution. Would President Bush and Condoleeza Rice wish to associate = themselves with Southern political leaders of the 1950s who condemned = Chief=20 Justice Earl Warren and his colleagues as revisionist historians because = their=20 decision (which, incidentally, was based in part on the research of = historian=20 John Hope Franklin and others) in Brown v. Board of Education = struck down=20 the accepted version of history and law laid down by the Court in = Plessy v.=20 Ferguson?

The administration's pejorative usage of "revisionist history" to = denigrate=20 critics by imputing to them a falsification of history is scarcely = surprising.=20 But it is especially ironic, considering that the president and his = principal=20 advisers have themselves been practitioners par excellence of this kind = of=20 revisionism. Iraq offers many examples. To justify an unprovoked = invasion of=20 that country, the president repeatedly exaggerated or distorted = ambiguous=20 intelligence reports to portray Iraqi possession of or programs to = develop=20 biological, chemical, and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" that = posed an=20 imminent threat to the United States. In his State of the Union message = on=20 January 28, President Bush made clear his acceptance of a British = intelligence=20 report that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of = uranium=20 from Africa" to develop nuclear weapons. This assertion was "revisionist = history" with a vengeance; the U. S. government knew at the time it was = received=20 that the intelligence was unreliable and learned soon afterwards that it = was=20 based on forged documents. Yet not until July did the administration = concede its=20 gaffe=E2=80=94and then tried to blame the CIA. That agency took the = fall, but with=20 respect to another administration justification for the = war=E2=80=94Saddam Hussein's=20 alleged ties to Al Qaeda=E2=80=94the CIA refused to provide any aid and = comfort. An=20 official in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research = offered=20 (in the New York Times of July 12, 2003) a pointed description of = the=20 kind of revisionist history practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al: = "This=20 administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the = answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"

In its foreign policy, too, the Bush administration has a strong = commitment=20 to this kind of revisionism. During his campaign for the presidency, = Bush=20 dismissed the previous administration's efforts at "nation building" = with=20 contempt. The government is now engaged in the most expensive experiment = in=20 nation-building in more than a half century=E2=80=94and so far the least = successful. The=20 Pentagon has constantly revised upward the cost of rebuilding = Iraq=E2=80=94which at this=20 writing stands at $180 billion and counting. Coming into office with a = surplus=20 in the federal budget and a commitment to a balanced budget, the = administration=20 is running the largest deficits in history, which will probably continue = into=20 the indefinite and seemingly infinite future. In his campaign for the=20 presidency, Bush also insisted that as a superpower, the United States = had an=20 obligation to be "humble" in its dealings with other nations. Vive la=20 revision!

For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful = memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves=20 "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the = president's=20 associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day = critics=20 of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious = ends.=20 But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the = term=20 "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza = Rice and=20 her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of=20 historians.

The judgmental tone of Rice's derogatory reference to "revisionist=20 historians" brings to mind a review of her book The Soviet Union and = the=20 Czechoslovak Army, 1948=E2=80=931983, in the December 1985 issue of = the American Historical = Review (p.=20 1236) when she was an assistant professor at Stanford. The reviewer = claimed that=20 Rice "frequently does not sift facts from propaganda and valid = information from=20 disinformation or misinformation." In addition, according to the = reviewer, she=20 "passes judgments and expresses opinions without adequate knowledge of = the=20 facts" and her "writing abounds with meaningless phrases." I cannot = testify for=20 or against the accuracy and fairness of this review. But I am tempted to = wonder,=20 in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, whether we are experiencing deja vu = all=20 over again.

=E2=80=94James M. McPherson (Princeton Univ.) is = president of the=20 American Historical Association. He can be reached by e-mail addressed = to jmcphers@princeton.edu.

Last Updated: February 7, 2008 10:56 AM =