Vietnam War History: Orthodox Versus Revisionist
Excerpt: The orthodox academic historiography of the Second Indochina War is less an empirical search for objective truth than a dogmatic defense of politically correct "truthiness." In contrast to objective truth, "truthiness" is the subjective perception of reality that its believers want to be true, regardless of any contrary evidence or logic. Their wish is thus father to their thought. (A really good summation of the contrasts between the "orthodox" and "revisionist" views. I use quotes because the word orthodox implies the "correct" view, and some try to make revisionist a negative term for falsely rewriting history. (Some "revisionist" history does do that, such as the book that claimed there was no need at all to drop the A-bombs on Japan and it was a horrible war crime for which Truman should have been prosecuted.) What people call the revisionist approach to the history of the Viet Nam War is actually a re-examination of facts, including some previously not well known or understood. Too many of the "orthodox" writers started off with their own preconceptions and biases about the war, just as today so many reporters do their "reporting" based on their own attitudes. --Del)
No comments:
Post a Comment