There was a video made a few years ago that suggested Ralph Macchio’s character in the Karate Kid, Daniel LaRusso, was the actual bully in the film. If you’ve not seen it, click this link. The premise is that Daniel, from New Jersey, was the aggressor while Johnny, the stereotypical California kid, was simply defending himself over and over and over as this Daniel kid was trying to steal his girlfriend, Alli (with an “i”). Daniel, aided by a Japanese child abusing sorcerer, was continually fueling the dispute with wanton attacks during a school dance, among other things. In the end, it was the instigating little twerp, Daniel, who refused to let bygones be bygones that wins a Karate tournament, defeating Johnny and taking his trophy, but only after his sorcerer/teacher cast a spell that magically cured his injured leg enabled him to win. Cheater and bully, that’s what he is.
If you never saw the film, but watched the video or read my poorly done synopsis, you’d think this Daniel character was a menace, and an instigating little jerk who thought he could simply turn on his guinea New Jersey charm and win over the adorable Alli, stealing her from Johnny, a kid trying to turn his life around through Martial Arts, something Johnny said in the beginning of the film. In fact, it’s quite the opposite as anyone who saw the film knows. But, if you didn’t bother to take the time to investigate, you might believe the video or my paragraph, ruining a film classic and heaping a lot of unnecessary dislike on the character of Daniel.
That is revisionist history. History told with a specific bias, often related by twisting known facts into the direction one wishes to turn them to change the narrative. In short, asking people to not believe the evidence presented, but see the evidence in a different light. Often, revisionist history is a healthy re-look at events in the past but is the result of uncovering new evidence proving the old interpretation incorrect. Evidence like proving a photo that’s fake, or a new discovery rendering earlier historical analysis moot, say, a letter disproving an assumption. A few years ago, it was discovered that Lucy, the hominid of archaeological lore, proof that human life originated in Tanzania, was surpassed by a find in Morocco. This would certainly necessitate revision of the origins of man as new evidence was uncovered, yet the notion modern man originating in Africa is intact as Morocco is on that continent, just a different geographical location.[1]
It becomes a bit trickier when we’re talking about interpretation, as conclusions are shaped by a variety of factors. As an example, Finley Hooper, a wonderful writer and historian postulates that Rome never fell but simply “changed” into something else despite archaeological evidence to the contrary. It wasn’t an upheaval as much as it was a metamorphosis, a gradual but inescapable change. His reasoning was that the Empire was a living, breathing entity, undergoing constant change, and it was simply the natural order of things for it to morph into something else. His book Roman Realities was a fantastic read although his conclusions lacked hard archaeological evidence. Nonetheless, there are historians who agree with him and his reasoning. A later historian, Bryan Ward-Perkins in his book The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization seemingly put to rest conclusions by those such as Finley Hooper and aided the classical conclusions of Rome’s fall by Edward Gibbon and his masterpiece The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by clear demonstration via evidence…roof tiles of Roman homes being the primary confirmation that Rome was overrun by Germanic tribes…Barbarians invasion the chief cause of the great empire’s ruin.[2] There are many such instances historically which makes its study even more challenging and rewarding than any other endeavor to my mind.
The point here is despite indisputable evidence staring some historians in the face, alternate conclusions can be created. The prudent reader must then ask themselves how this can be the so. How, in the face of direct evidence which, seems to prove one theory over another, is the alternative view more widely accepted? There are a few answers.
First, and unfortunately, foremost, is one’s political or philosophical orientation. While the Leopold von Ranke approach to historical analysis should be the standard,[3] it is not. Liberalism in historical interpretation is well documented, especially in the areas of economics where Marxist ideology took hold in the 19th century.[4] Further, the vicissitudes of morality also play a significant factor in how the histories are written. Today, President Richard Nixon is looked at in a much better light than in the period just after Watergate. Similarly, the rule of Stalin is also going through something of a transformation in Russia and even some parts of the West, completely discounting the deaths of millions at his hand and the documentation of his rule by no less than Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of the gulag system. This is not an isolated case, but, again, simply part of time’s effect on history and historical analysis. The further away from an event, the more likely we are to see it in a different light be that light darker or brilliant.
Second, it is the great gift and sometime curse of human beings to be able to rationalize almost anything, no matter the evidence. There are those that will argue for the necessity of appeasement in negotiation when history proves, almost unequivocally a policy of appeasement does little to stem those bent on destruction or other such nefarious endeavors. Further, appeasement seems to embolden rather than diffuse. Still, appeasement is attempted time and time again based on the rationalization calmer heads will prevail, an assumption proven wrong more often than right.
It seems, we are seeing the same phenomenon of revision now, in real time, as reinterpretations emerge of not only the Second World War and the West’s involvement in it, but in the key players, not the least of whom was Winston Churchill now seen by many as a villain rather than a hero. An example might be a recent interview Tucker Carlson gave to Darryl Cooper, a writer who has amassed a large following on Substack. He is not a conventional historian, one that is degreed in the study of history, however, he has amassed a significant readership. Further, Mr. Cooper is dismissed by classical historians, those of the degreed class. To them, he is illegitimate and one to be shunted aside as he doesn’t have the required degrees.[5]
Resources today are immense outside of the university setting, and if sources are documented of one’s conclusions, why are they no more valid than, say, Finley Hooper’s who’s explanation for the fall of Rome would seem superfluous at best when compared to the actual evidence. Credentialism is a bit passé these days, at least to a certain extent. The conundrum becomes even more pronounced when the conclusions of those not credentialed fall in direct contradiction to those of the lofty degrees. It should be up to the reader to determine the strength of argument based on the availability of the facts.
This is not to say degrees are worthless or to discount them, rather it means to say if sources are documented but the conclusions differ, the conclusion is at least worth consideration. There are many such instances where those not degreed changed the course of history, the Bird Man of Alcatraz, Robert Stroud comes to mind.
During the interview, Mr. Cooper postulated that not only was Churchill the “bad guy,” but that the Holocaust was simply a “humanitarian impulse to prevent suffering, because prisoners of war were too numerous to feed, so it was ‘more human to just finish them off quickly.’”[6] This view is not only contrary to the evidence, including the written evidence of Nazi officers and Hitler himself, it is simply wrong and as Arash Azizi points out correctly in his article criticizing those conclusions, little more than Holocaust denial.
Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander during the war stated upon seeing the concentration camps, “In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”
It would seem, then, Mr. Cooper’s interpretation is incorrect, but as we’ve seen, our eyes and our outlook can play tricks on us based on our outlook or, again, the historical vicissitudes of the present period. It is not misinformation as some in the media might suggest, it is simply wrong based on the preponderance of the evidence. That is the problem with historical interpretation and in our earlier example, the problem with Daniel LaRusso. We can see him the way we wish if we do not do further investigation into the facts.
The same is happening with Winston Churchill. He is being demonized in the current period because of the Second World War, but even more to the point, based on his actions and stances during as far back as the Boar War, the very war he fought in, was captured, escaped, and wrote about extensively while it was happening.[7] This revision of Churchill extends to his failed plans at Gallipoli during the First World War as well, his detractors using as evidence the failed and costly plan that cost him his position in British government and made him, for all intents and purposes a pariah until his rehabilitation in the 1930s, the period wherein he was the only member of Parliament to warn of Hitler and the Nazi regime, labeled a “war hawk” for his stance.
In an article published in The Atlantic on September 6th of this year, the author charges Mr. Cooper with attempting to tarnish Churchill’s image as the latter’s position on Churchill was that the Second World War was not only initiated by him but used as a redemption crusade for the errors he made in the First World War. If we are being true to facts in a Rankian fashion, the Second World War was indeed started by France and Great Britain, the latter two nations declaring war on Germany after the German and Soviet invasion of Poland.[8]
A deeper look, one with historical inference would suggest Britain and France had no choice, especially after the Munich Crisis of 1938, a crisis exacerbated by Hitler’s continual flaunting of the policy of appeasement, a factor it seems Mr. Cooper is not taking into consideration. In short, we were not there, we do not know how it felt to be in that situation, much like police might not understand the fear that drove one to kill an intruder into one’s home. We simply cannot duplicate that through papers, newsreels, or oral histories. It’s not the same. It is true the allies wantonly bombed Dresden and Nuremberg chiefly as revenge for the atrocities committed against London during the Blitz, and it is also true Europe after the war was a complete and total nightmare with allied soldiers in some cases carrying out revenge killings, rapings, and murders against the German population.[9]
All of this is to say historical interpretation can be complicated by many factors: time period, morality of said time period, outlook of the writer, political affiliation of said writer, and how said historian was trained (interesting that most historians today and in the past were/are trained in the liberal manner). Further, in the modern period it is not enough to say one is credentialed, their office decorated with a Ph. D for information is readily available for anyone via the internet among numerous sources.
However, there are correct interpretations based on evidence and interpretations that are simply wrong, again, based on direct evidence. How are we, the great unwashed, to know the difference? A good rule of thumb to begin is if it makes sense or not. Secondly, check the sources of said interpretation. Third, as my father once told me, believe nothing of what you hear, and half of what you see. Do the work if you’re interested. Do the research. Do not believe what seems to be correct, for presentation, especially in politics, is the make-up on the pig. Be skeptical and curious, not simply accepting that which aligns with your philosophy. Don’t be lazy.
Seems like a good beginning.
[1] There is some dispute about the Morocco find, as results are not yet conclusive, but yet we know Ethiopia to be the home of Omo, the oldest prior to the Morocco find to be legitimately homo sapien and about 230,000 years old.
[2] Of course that was only one aspect: poor economy, overburdened and overtaxed citizens, unmotivated and lazy populace as well as plague, the latter of which very little is written about.
[3] He was a 19th century historian who advocated the study of, and telling of history with just fact. Not a lot of fun to read, but that was secondary to his historical analysis.
[4] See the book Capitalism and the Historians for a detailed and complete analysis with specific examples. It is quite enlightening.
[5] Full disclosure. I’ve not read Mr. Cooper’s work, just the support and criticism of him.
[6] Azizi, Arash, The Atlantic, https://apple.news/Aq_u5xR8hSSiq7yJb0CNMiQ
[7] There is much more to this story than I can write here. For a fuller account, see William Manchester’s masterpiece 3-part book series The Last Lion, book 1.
[8] This was in defense of the Treaty of Locarno, the invasion of Poland the last straw due to Hitler’s continual expansion and spitting in the face of the allies and their position of appeasement.
[9] The definitive book on this subject to me is entitled: Aftermath: Life in the Fallout of the Third Reich, 1945-1955 by Harald Jahner.
