The Key Differences Between Historical Revisionism and Historical Denialism

Historical revisionism and historical denialism are two distinct phenomena that are often confused with one another. While both involve reexamining and challenging the accepted narrative of history, there are some key differences between the two.

Historical revisionism is the act of reexamining and revising our understanding of the past based on new evidence and perspectives. It is a natural and necessary part of the historical process, and it is driven by a desire to gain a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past.

On the other hand, historical denialism is the act of rejecting established historical facts and evidence, often for ideological or political reasons. It is driven by a desire to promote a particular agenda or narrative, and it often involves cherry-picking and manipulating evidence in order to support that narrative.

In general, historical revisionism is a positive and constructive force, while historical denialism is a destructive and misguided one. Revisionism encourages us to remain open-minded and receptive to new information, while denialism promotes closed-mindedness and the rejection of facts. As such, historical revisionism should be embraced, while historical denialism should be rejected.