Abstract
When society thinks of the phrase “revisionist history,” George Orwell’s harrowing words likely come to mind. The term itself is used in the political realm as “an accusation of deliberately distorting irrefutable historical ‘facts’ to serve a particular political agenda or viewpoint.” Although the topic of revisionism is a hot-button issue among historians and non-historians alike, Americans are divided over how to approach history. About 47% of the population believes that history should question the nation’s past, while 53% contend that history should celebrate it. This divide becomes even more evident when broken down by party lines: 84% of Republicans support celebrating history, and 70% of Democrats believe we should question it. However, with this political polarization, who controls the narrative? We have entered an age of dismissing historians out of fear of this villainized “revisionism,” and we do so at the price of increased federal involvement in shaping historical knowledge.
Recommended Citation
Autumn H. Duncan,
The Politics of Preservation: Federal Implications of the Smithsonian Executive Order,
91 Mo. L. Rev.
()
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol91/iss2/12