Newsletter

One of the historical terms on the lips of people these days is the 'wicked thing' called revisionism. I say 'wicked' because this term has sometimes a good meaning and other times a negative connotation, depending on the context in which it is used, causing a lot of confusion.

The concept of revisionism originated from the avid followers of Marxism and Leninism. When what they believed to be the "principles" of Marxism, i.e. violent revolution led by workers and peasants, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or class struggle, were denied and "revised" toward valuing the middle class or welfare policy within the framework of parliamentary democracy, they denounced and rejected it as 'revisionism.' In recent years, although under different circumstances, China in the 1960s criticized the Soviet Union's attempt to ease tensions with the United States as revisionism, and the Soviet Union returned the criticism, denouncing China's refusal to permit revisionism as 'dogmatism.'

Meanwhile, a 'revised' historical concept, different from the original 'dogmatic' one, has been derived from revisionism. It is also referred to as 'revisionism' and also known as 'historical revisionism.'

Issues with Far-fetched Revision/Interpretation of History

'Historical revisionism' is a term used primarily in historical studies which refers to reconstructing history and giving it new descriptions by reanalyzing correlations among newly discovered or existing historical records. It collectively refers to any attempt to challenge and negate established 'historical facts' or revise common view. To distinguish from, and avoid confusion with, the original meaning of revisionism mentioned earlier, it is referred to as 'historical revisionism.'

But once new facts are revealed later or new historical records discovered, the existing historical views or interpretations accepted till then would have to be reviewed and verified from various angles and eventually 'revised.' This is a very natural and justified course of action.

The problem is that denying history as a whole on the basis of a few exceptions or adopting a far-fetched 'revised interpretation' to the taste of oneself or one's country is also referred to as historical revisionism, causing confusion. It is perhaps the destiny of historical studies to have both 'desirable revision' and 'undesirable revision,' but ironically the same term is being used to refer to both. This historical term gained a negative image especially as those who denied the Holocaust identified themselves as 'historical revisionists.' The image of 'historical revisionism' became even more complex as the term 'revisionism' was used among American researchers in the 1960s and 1970s to refer to the research methodology and results that criticized the imperialist hegemony policy of the United States while advocating the foreign policy of the Soviet Union.

The hodgepodge of historical perceptions revealed in the history textbooks by the Japanese publishers like Fusosha or Jiyusha, or the series of 'rethinking the past' attempts recently put forward by the Abe administration is also referred to as 'historical revisionism.' For example, in its historical perception, the Abe administration views that there is no established definition of aggression, tries to 'revise' the Kono Statement thinking that there is no proof that there was forced mobilization of 'comfort women,' pays visits to Yasukuni Shrine where 'gods of war' are enshrined, and deny or downplay the Nanjing Massacre in an attempt to justify and whitewash the atrocities committed by militarist Japan. These series of history 'revision' discourses and descriptions are also referred to as 'historical revisionism.'