In several very real senses, all historical works are revisionist; otherwise, they's just repetitions of old interpretations.

Every time that we discover new information we have to re-evaluate what we thought that we knew about an event in the past. And, as the Uncommonwealth blog indicates, re-evaluating old evidence often leads to changed understandings about the past.

We had discussions of this in 2020 when Confederate monuments were under maximum criticism and being taken down. Neither re-interpreting nor revising is erasing or changing history. History is what happened. We can't and don't change that; but we do often-times revise how we think about the past and what historical events may mean.

Back at the centennial anniversary of the American Civil War, the prevailing interpretation stressed states' rights, battlefield bravery, and death, which almost entirely ignored the most important consequences of the Civil War, which were preservation of representative democracy and of the free labor economy and the abolition of slavery; but by the time of the 150th anniversary, we acknowledged those critically important ingredients and incorporated them into our historical narratives and understandings.

People shouldn't be afraid to think for themselves and should be willing to change their minds. That is what people do who continue their educations beyond the elementary level. I know. I've been reading about and studying Virginia's history for more than 50 years and have changed my mind on many things as a result of my discoveries and the scholarship of other people who have found new information or re-evaluated old information.

Brent Tarter

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
https://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).