Which describes the revisionist or conflict perspective in historiography?

History

1 answer:

shutvik [7]3 years ago

4 0

Historical perspectives change over time depending on the biases of the writer.

Historians themselves are embedded in time periods and cultures, and the times and cultures in which they live influence their understanding and interpretation of the history they record. Historiography, that is, the writing of history, is a field of study in itself, seeing the work of historians within the different contexts from which they were doing their research and writing. Revisionist approaches happen as historical context changes and attitudes change.

As an example, you might look at histories of the establishment of modern Israel written by Israeli historians in the decades shortly after 1948 as compared to recent decades. The earlier historians painted the picture in strong, patriotic terms, without giving too much attention to the side of their opponents -- Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries. More recent "revisionist" historians have sought to look at the whole picture more fully, including the perspective of the peoples Israel antagonized or displaced as the new nation established itself in the land.

You might be interested in

Which of the following is not a power if the president

tresset_1 [31]

Does what? you didn't finish the answer

4 0

3 years ago

which of the following was the main was the main reason that constantinople was a good location for the capital of the Byzantine

Alex Ar [27]

Byzantium was never a city-state of great influence like that of Athens, Corinth or Sparta, but the city enjoyed relative peace and steady growth as a thriving commercial city lent by its prominent position.

The site was astride the land route from Europe to Asia and the sea route from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and was in the Golden Horn. An excellent and wide port.

Already then, in the Greek and early times of Rome, Byzantium was famous for its strategic geographical position that made siege and capture difficult, and its position at the crossroads of the Asian-European trade route on land and as the gateway between the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, they turned it into a settlement too valuable to be abandoned.

4 0

3 years ago

What did the evergreen tree symbolize thousands of years ago

lyudmila [28]

Answer:

Evergreen trees symbolized an everlasting life with God.

Explanation:

I hope this helps!

3 0

2 years ago

How successful were the British in expanding their control over india? [14 Marks).

nikitadnepr [17]

BY NEPAL

BRITISH WERE SUCCESFUL BESCAUSE THE RANA REGINE OF NEPAL WHO HAD RULED 104 YEARS KEPT GOOD RELATION AND SEND NEPALI TROOPS TO INDIA

3 0

3 years ago

We’re the mongols barbarians or builders of the world?

Kay [80]

Answer:

It´s difficult to provide a simple answer to that question. There maybe more than one answer. It depends on the views each person has, on cultural and individual values.

The Mongols were seen as barbarians by the Chinese. They didn´t follow Chinese customs and social norms, and anybody outside the circle of Chinese culture was taken as a barbarian. Besides, China - Zhongguo, the Middle Kingdom - always saw itself as the center of civilization. After their conquest of imperial China, the Mongols adopted Chinese norms and assimilated to Chinese culture, just as it has happened with other foreign conquerors, which constitutes an acknowledgement of Chinese sophistication.

By their global conquest - the Mongol hordes reached Europe and Southeast Asia - they put together into one political entity many former kingdoms and lands that had had no previous contact with each other. Curiously enough, Mongol expansion was a vehicle of Chinese culture during the Yuan dinasty, founded by Mongols rulers in imperial China.

Explanation:

8 0

3 years ago