History and revisionism

Historical revisionism is a hotbutton issue for many conservatives. From a historian's perspective, revisionism means that a major argument has been revised. That is what all good history tries to do. History is, and always has been a flawed discipline--more art in many ways than science. We don't think we are writing the "Truth" but hope to get it right in ways that matter. Our interpretation is always dependent on flawed sources, that we try to piece together in a recognizable and understandable way. Revisionism means that we have found a new way of explaining both the old and new source material that we have available.

But for the general public, revisionism means that you have rewritten history. It means taking the past and rewriting it for political purposes, or at least I think that is what it means. Part of this is the misunderstanding about how history is written, and most people do not understand the fluid and changing nature of our understanding of the past. Revision means changing our interpretation of slavery from "well-intentioned" to "racist and exploitative and violent." People believed the first for years based on slaveholder's views and sources. The second is the way we understand the institution after including slave voices and other source material. That kind of revisionism is positive, right?

What people mean by revisionism is to reach back in time and simply change something--and since most people see history as factual, it means removing or adding facts.

I was reminded of this today when I read this story about how Russia is now turning their fallen soldiers at Kursk into Christian soldiers:

Analysis: Christian revival at battlefield - (United Press International): "For half a century, Kursk was glorified as another heroic triumph of the Soviet Union, but in the 13 years and more since the collapse of communism, the narrative has changed, the past has been transformed through the shifting perspective of the present .It is seen through another, far more unexpected glass. For the hundreds of thousands who died defending their Motherland in the wheat fields of west-central Russia are now revered also as Christian martyrs."

This is exactly what critics mean by "revisionist" history.

and this story about Japan creating textbooks that gloss over Japanese atrocities against China during WW2.

I am curious if conservative evangelicals in this country see both those examples as problematic. Because from my perspective, this is exactly what David Barton is trying to do to our own past.