The Need For — and Dangers Of — Historical Revision
The term “historical revisionism” tends to bring up many unsavory stereotypes. It’s seen as the activity of many a loony conspiracy theorist, bent on selling a warped view of history. These are not absurd caricatures: there has sadly been a fair amount of such unsavory individuals. However, there is still a need for a refined, improved project.
The Positives
Historical revision is nothing new: technically speaking, history is a subject continuously revised throughout the ages. “Revision,” remarks James McPherson of the American Historical Association,
“is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue, between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time… The unending quest of historians for understanding the past — that is, revisionism — is what makes history vital and meaningful.” (1)
As civilization develops and new theories and ethics form, history must evolve to take into account those developments, and to further get to a more holistic understanding of history. The narratives of nations and states are challenged, mythos dispelled, and the stories reworked to better reflect not only the elite, but the masses, minorities, all groups and conflicts. It is a chance to develop beyond the prejudices of our time, to find a fairer, more just and truthful view of our histories.
It is no surprise that libertarianism has adopted such a practice: both the New Left and libertarian right in 20th century America had adopted the theories and research of such revisionist historians as Gabriel Kolko, and the criticisms made against imperialism and corporatism were adapted into the general anti-establishment and liberatory ideologies of the time, their effects far reaching all the way to today. Murray Rothbard, an advocate for historical revisionism, puts its role in libertarian thought succinctly:
“The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State… and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity. By working past the fog of State deception to penetrate to the truth… the Revisionist works to delegitimate, to desanctify, the State in the eyes of the previously deceived public. By doing so, the Revisionist, even if he is not a libertarian personally, performs a vitally important libertarian service.” (2)
In understanding our past, in finding the truths of our history, we create a greater knowledge of where we came from, of what was right and wrong in the past, and what needs to be moved away from, as well as walked towards. Historical revision seems to be the best tool to bring about such understanding. Alas, there are a few notable problems with it.
The Risks
As stated early, historical revisionism tends to be bring up a collection of different cartoonish depictions: from holocaust deniers to neo-confederates, to all manners of crackpot conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, such caricatures are not all figments of the imagination; and a worrying amount of libertarians have been quite close to such stereotypical individuals and groups.
The relations are at times more broad and not as specific to historical revisionism: Rothbard was connected with and at times in support of figures like David Duke, a former grand master of the Ku Klux Klan and a fervent holocaust denier. Rothbard’s belief was that, by allying with more far-right or paleo-conservative groups or individuals, power can be taken and government could be shrunken down, citing as an example the shared beliefs against intervention that both libertarians and the far-right hold. He ignored the social authoritarianism inherent in the far-right, of course.
Other cases are more narrow: Rothbard’s student, Samuel Edward Konkin III, the founder of agorism, had also been on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a self-proclaimed historical revisionist organization known for promoting holocaust denial. While Konkin himself does not deny the holocaust, and claimed to only defend the IHR’s freedom of speech, his close connections to the organization are troublesome. That is not to bring up other points, such as summarizing the Civil War as one in which the “North wanted to enslave the South; South (justifiably) wanted to be free of the North”(3), an oversimplification of such a complex historical event, and an embarrassment to the discipline of historical revision.
Even in recent times, the historical revisionism of libertarians lean quite dangerously towards being reactionary. Tom Woods, for example, a libertarian thinker and former member of the League of The South, a neo-confederate organization. While he is no longer connected to the group, he still promotes certain beliefs of the group, such as claiming the Civil War to be a “War of Northern Aggression” (similar to Konkin’s claims), which he has written about in books such as “The Politically Incorrect Guide to History.” Other figures, like Dave Smith, call people like Nick Fuentes, who has advocated for a right-wing dictatorship, “fellow travelers”, due to similar beliefs against foreign intervention.
The role of historical revision is not to be understated here: while it has brought about criticisms against the actions of the State, it has also been used to promote theories of history that, while not mainstream, are not true either. Are we using historical revision to find the truth, or to create new “noble lies”?
What To Do
In dealing with the discipline, we must decide whether it is more important to get to the truths of history, or to create anti-establishment propaganda, which leaves out as many facts and inserts as many or more falsehoods than mainstream historical accounts. As libertarians, the choice is clear: we must stick to the facts of the matter, interpreting them so as to not distort the past, while still keeping to our moral principles, showing what was right or wrong in the past. “Who controls the past controls the future;” if we want to create a world where truth, freedom, and justice are at center, then we cannot allow ourselves to be led away by pleasant falsehoods.
I would hope to see more libertarians use historical revision, as a way to bring about truth: already figures such as Scott Horton have done great work on that front. However, we must also be critical of accounts given: we cannot take the words of figures like Woods without doing research ourselves, to make sure that conflicting views are given thought, to find the most accurate account of events. As I have said and will say repeatedly, we must keep to truth, to facts, to understanding history from a libertarian perspective, yes, but acknowledging the complexities and differing viewpoints as well. There are great risks to historical revision; but there is also great knowledge to be gained from such a pursuit.
- From McPherson’s short essay “Revisionist Historians”, published by the American Historical Association’s newsmagazine, Perspectives On History
- From Rothbard’s “The Case for Revisionism (and Against A Priori History),” republished by the Mises Institute.
- Konkin’s An Agorist Primer, KoPubCo paperback, p. 88.
