And I must say I find the revisionist assumption that only Communists could possibly support the Revolution insulting--though I know it's part of their larger agenda to discredit the Revolution entirely.
I agree with you that this is a trend, but I don't think it is necessarily the result of intentional vindictiveness so much as the apparently dominant societal outlook on politics and history. Essentially, there seems a trend to view a focus on political abstractions or idealism with a certain degree of contempt, as though too great an interest in them is foolish, immature, or dangerous. Therefore, I think there is a tendency to right of the revolutionaries from the start as silly dreamers or dangerous radicals for what they believed and wanted to achieve rather than for what they actually ended up doing.
That said, if you want to see a true example of academic vindictiveness (and, in my opinion, dishonesty), look up a NY Times book review of Andress' The Terror and Scurr's Fatal Purity. He takes a line that in context is rather benign and quotes it out of context to imply that the whole premise of Fatal Purity is to defend and justify Robespierre--it's one thing to criticize Scurr's work by finding actual examples of her apologizing for Robespierre (and there are some), but to essentially create one's own examples implies one has an agenda beyond what should be acceptable in the study of history.
Sorry. I've digressed. I don't like seeing the honest understanding of a subject is made second to the politics of its study.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-20 08:02 pm (UTC)I agree with you that this is a trend, but I don't think it is necessarily the result of intentional vindictiveness so much as the apparently dominant societal outlook on politics and history. Essentially, there seems a trend to view a focus on political abstractions or idealism with a certain degree of contempt, as though too great an interest in them is foolish, immature, or dangerous. Therefore, I think there is a tendency to right of the revolutionaries from the start as silly dreamers or dangerous radicals for what they believed and wanted to achieve rather than for what they actually ended up doing.
That said, if you want to see a true example of academic vindictiveness (and, in my opinion, dishonesty), look up a NY Times book review of Andress' The Terror and Scurr's Fatal Purity. He takes a line that in context is rather benign and quotes it out of context to imply that the whole premise of Fatal Purity is to defend and justify Robespierre--it's one thing to criticize Scurr's work by finding actual examples of her apologizing for Robespierre (and there are some), but to essentially create one's own examples implies one has an agenda beyond what should be acceptable in the study of history.
Sorry. I've digressed. I don't like seeing the honest understanding of a subject is made second to the politics of its study.