Historical Revisionism, etc. (mostly rambling)

This is a topic I've wanted to discuss for some time, and I feel like now that I've accepted a graduate position at University of Texas at Austin, I've at least got some credibility to talk about the subject of historical revisionism.

I went to East Hill Christian School, and one of the school's objectives was to bring out the truth of Scripture in every class. Now, if you've ever talked to me about high school, you know that I am not that impressed with the teachers' fulfillment of this goal, although there certainly were individual teachers that met and exceeded the challenge. But these teachers were few and far between.

The Scripture presented in the class had the appearance of a reactionary, arch-conservative textbook. As a result, in my history class, "revisionism" was comparable with the f-word. Traditional, and arguably mythological stories were told about America, its allies, and its enemies. Any historian challenging the supposed Christian foundations of America, or perhaps the justification of the Revolutionary War (or any of America's combat engagements), or seriously looking at the failure of the American dream were, to put it mildy, hellbound.

The problem with anti-revisionism should be obvious to most people, and I feel like people with a serious Christian worldview should see its flaws in spades. The problem is, at least in the South as far as I've experienced it, Christians seem to cling to myths about our national heritage, at the expense of our Christian faith. A Christian who disagrees with historical revisionism disagrees with either basic theology or Abraham Kuyper's statement that everything belongs to Christ.

And it is mournfully to the shame of Christians that the perspectives on history held by some professors are far more biblical than those of most Christians (who, to be frank, really don't know much about history at all).

The first problem with this kind of historic traditionalism is its plain ignorance. It assumes that a particular historical period has been defined beyond question. Particular forms of physics have not been completely fleshed out. Some forms of science are often turned on their heads. To bring the example closer to home, other areas of liberal arts are constantly in flux. Philosophers are moving all around from empiricism to skepticism and everywhere in between. Many are embracing normativity. Theism is no longer barred from discussion. Literary critics, alternatively, are continuing to ask new and difficult questions concerning the texts they study. But far be it for historians to ask tough questions about how we interpret the past. The belief inherent in the view that history has been written is that, in some measure, we have arrived. That is one thought that should never be permitted to run through a Christian's head (concerning any belief) while he is alive. In the fields of academia and faith, the statement is, if anything, ignorant.

Critiques of historical revision probably shouldn't be limited to ignorance. The past is not merely assumed to be wholly true, it is glorified. This is at the same time dishonest and idolatrous. These critics of historical revision usually have some incredible bias to their ridiculous comments, and sinful men are held up as the reason for our existence (as in, they saved us from this evil nation). For example, it's typical to think of Ronald Reagan as one of the great men who felled communism. This is a wonderfully stupid statement, and the people who typically make it aren't actually educated on communism, how it came to power, important differences in alternate ideaologies (Stalinism, normalization, reform communism, etc). Other events which would put our nation, or our favorite figure, in a negative light are downplayed. We don't look at some of the alternate ideas about the American Revolution, because we like the idea of a brutal, oppressive British government (instead of the one that was actually taxing Americans much less than the citizens of England proper).

Historical periods become ideals in themselves. Most people are romantics, hell, I am. Although you'd figure that as a historian I would be pining to live in some other decade or century, I'm not. I haven't said "I just wish I lived in . . . " in years. This is a rejection of God's will, really. God has you living where you are, and when you are, for a wonderful reason. This also ties back into simple ignorance of the past. When people tell me that they wished they lived in a particular time period, I usually smile at them, tell them something splendidly horrific about that time period, and go on my way. Other periods of history would not make any more sense to you than your current period, and you need to be content where God has placed you.

The result of this ignorance, dishonesty, and idolatry, is that we begin to find hope in our Americanness, or in our nation, or in our region. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should hate anything about ourselves that relates to enjoying our nation for what it is, or that we should be indifferent to where we were born, but I am arguing that we no longer find hope in America. We never should have, and if we do, we should stop. Our hope is in the risen Christ, and not in anything about America, the South, or even Auburn University.

These are some common ideas I find running in the minds of those who would think that history is done, or that our current histories are 100% accurate. But these ideologies run contrary to so much of Scripture. Original histories are flawed, just as their writers were flawed. Those histories can mythologize the past as effectively as any romantic. They sometimes ignore pertinent historical issues. And all too often, we are clinging to historical or political perspectives over and against Scripture, when even the greatest of these perspectives should be made to submit to every word of Scripture. And only after we submit our perspectives to Scripture will we find that they are truly established.

I realize that I haven't actually talked about anything historical, at least in any detail. I will go into one aspect of Modern European history that has seen some revision lately. Scholarship on Nazi Germany has shifted from an interpretation of "special path" to "heightened experience." To explain. We traditionally think that the horrors of concentration camps and National Socialism could only happen in Germany alone, because of its perceived tradition of anti-semitism, militarism, or what not. The Treaty of Versailles put Germany in an particular position where Nazism had to come about there and not anywhere else.

But is that really true? It isn't, to be honest. Marshal Petain of Vichy France actually embraced Nazi ideals and set up concentration camps in a handful of French provinces. The same thing happened in Poland, on a much larger scale.

In America, there were plenty of red and Catholic scares. The second KKK was alive and kicking. The Supreme Court actually legalized the sterilization of individuals under the same beliefs in eugenics that Nazis shared. Could that have happened here? With a few more aggravations, certainly.

It's scary to think that we are not very far from doing something horrendously evil, but even scarier that we could so eagerly support something like that. While there were plenty of resisters to Nazi policies, many Germans embraced the regime. The regime was attractive. If you doubt it, just watch this propaganda video from the 1942 Christmas in Germany. You see images of Germans making gifts for soldiers on the front, you watch as children visit the war wounded in hospitals. You see German families enjoy Christmas at home, while the director montages pictures of German soldiers at the front receiving the gifts. You can't help but be partially won over by the storyline of the propaganda...national unity, people caring for each other in times of need.



When you boil it down, you don't want to find hope in where you live. You want to find hope in Scripture, and in the Christ that to whom Scripture points. In the meantime, open your mind up to the possibilities that history hasn't been exhausted, and take it easy on the people trying to figure out what really went on at one point.