AHC:governments' lies and spins filled with anachronistic buzzwords

The Ottoman Devshirme comes to mind.

Fact: Children are seized from their parents, taken away and forcibly converted to another religion. Most are put to work in Anatolian villages for years, and eventually become city guards, street sweepers and so on. They may or may not get an opportunity to die on some distant battlefield. A tiny minority that has exceptional luck and talent might eventually rise to a high position.
The practice is viewed as a harsh punishment by both the Christian population and the Ottoman state itself. It's also used by corrupt officials as a cover for slave trade and blackmail.

Spin:
A positive example of the Empire's multi-ethnic character, which strives to give the minorities upward mobility and to integrate the diverse populations of the Empire.

The reason it comes to mind is that I've seen more than one historian present it in this - anachronistic, and somewhat inaccurate - way. The Ottomans themselves were quite honest and not at all propagandist about it.
 
The Ottoman Devshirme comes to mind.

Fact: Children are seized from their parents, taken away and forcibly converted to another religion. Most are put to work in Anatolian villages for years, and eventually become city guards, street sweepers and so on. They may or may not get an opportunity to die on some distant battlefield. A tiny minority that has exceptional luck and talent might eventually rise to a high position.
The practice is viewed as a harsh punishment by both the Christian population and the Ottoman state itself. It's also used by corrupt officials as a cover for slave trade and blackmail.

Spin:
A positive example of the Empire's multi-ethnic character, which strives to give the minorities upward mobility and to integrate the diverse populations of the Empire.

The reason it comes to mind is that I've seen more than one historian present it in this - anachronistic, and somewhat inaccurate - way. The Ottomans themselves were quite honest and not at all propagandist about it.

Very correct! This is essentially, 'what is a hyper revisionist view of historical subjects', also referred to my most hated aspect of historical discourse.
 
Seems like a bit of a strawman argument. Revisionism in theory should just be updating old assumptions with newly gathered facts from newly found documents or archeological findings. Its an important part of history to continue to update assumptions and incorporate new evidence. Like postmodernism, revisionism is something that typically gets attacked in its most exaggerated or strawman forms, and thus sometimes it's achievements are discredited.

I don't have anything to contribute at this juncture, but I do find this thread hilarious. Perhaps though it would be better suited to chat? It doesn't have much relevance to a PoD before 1900...
 
Seems like a bit of a strawman argument. Revisionism in theory should just be updating old assumptions with newly gathered facts from newly found documents or archeological findings. Its an important part of history to continue to update assumptions and incorporate new evidence. Like postmodernism, revisionism is something that typically gets attacked in its most exaggerated or strawman forms, and thus sometimes it's achievements are discredited.

I don't have anything to contribute at this juncture, but I do find this thread hilarious. Perhaps though it would be better suited to chat? It doesn't have much relevance to a PoD before 1900...

Everyone practices revisionism unless you are al-Masudi and lived during the Zanj revolt or the subject you are commenting upon. Revisionism created the field of modern history. However, this does not excuse 'hyper' revisionism, revisionism that exits completely the base evidence to paint particular pictures without the use of primary commentation.

This sort of topic is less powerful in western civilization as European history is heavily scrutinized and less subject to this heinous style of reading. With that said, in my line of study, Islamic history and Islamic Fiqh, it is the going trend to revise history to a point that it exits the words of our commentators and builds a particular narrative to be used for modern politics or to uphold certain western views, whether that be the west is superior or that the west is an evil capitalist cesspit.

In history, everything must be taken with moderation, too much orthodoxy is and leads to being stiff in discourse and lacking new ideas. In the same, one who takes revisionism too far, create fictive worlds outside of reality. The best, is to have moderate revisionism with slightly more orthodoxy in one's political commentation or discourse.
 
Last edited:
Top