Editing Historical negationism (section)

==Techniques==
{{Main article|Pseudohistory}}
Historical negationism applies the techniques of research, quotation, and presentation for [[deception]] of the reader and [[denial]] of the historical record. In support of the "revised history" perspective, the negationist historian uses false documents as genuine sources, presents specious reasons to distrust genuine documents, exploits published opinions by quoting out of historical context, manipulates [[statistics]], and mistranslates texts in other languages.<ref>Tennent H. Bagley, [https://archive.org/details/spywarsmolesmyst00bagl Spy Wars]¸ Yale University Press, 2007.  {{ISBN|978-0-300-12198-8}}, p. 105.</ref> The revision techniques of historical negationism operate in the [[academic research|intellectual space]] of public debate for the advancement of a given interpretation of history and the cultural perspective of the "revised history".<ref name= "Dionne1">Dionne, E.J. Jr. [http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=3SJF-B8B0-002S-T1J1&csi=8075&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true Cold War Scholars Fault Stalin: Soviet Historians Lean to U.S. View]. The Washington Post. 26 July 1990. LexisNexis Database (Retrieved 12 October 2011). First Section, p. A3.</ref> As a document, the revised history is used to negate the validity of the factual, documentary record, and so reframe explanations and perceptions of the discussed historical event, to deceive the reader, the listener, and the viewer; therefore, historical negationism functions as a technique of [[propaganda]].<ref name="Nargor1">Nagorski, Andrew. [http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=4S1C-XM90-TX2J-20J2&csi=5774&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true Russia's New Normal: The Cold War may be over, but that doesn't mean the threat from the Kremlin has entirely disappeared.] Newsweek; World Affairs. 17 March 2008. LexisNexis Database(. Retrieved 12 October 2011)Vol. 151 No 11. {{ISSN|0163-7053}}</ref> Rather than submit their works for [[peer review]], negationist historians rewrite history and use [[fallacy|logical fallacies]] to construct arguments that will obtain the desired results, a "revised history" that supports an agenda&nbsp;– political, ideological, religious, etc.<ref name="Evans-145"/>

In the practice of [[historiography]], the British historian [[Richard J. Evans]] describes the technical differences, between [[Historical revisionism|professional historians]] and negationist historians, commenting: "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged, just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, to make their arguments more plausible."<ref name="Evans-Pgrph-6-20">[[Richard J. Evans]]. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, [http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6.html 6. General Conclusion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924025406/http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6.html |date=24 September 2015 }} Paragraphs 6.20,6.21</ref>

===Deception===
{{See also|Disinformation}}
Deception includes falsifying information, [[Obscurantism|obscuring the truth]], and lying to manipulate public opinion about the historical event discussed in the revised history. The negationist historian applies the techniques of deception to achieve either a political or an [[Ideology|ideological]] goal, or both. The field of history distinguishes among history books based upon credible, verifiable sources, which were [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] before publication; and deceptive history books, based upon unreliable sources, which were not submitted for peer review.<ref>Jon Silverman [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4449212.stm How 'Holocaust denier' fought and lost] on the [[BBC]] web-site 18 November 2005</ref><ref>[[Malte Herwig]] "[http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,395810,00.html The Swastika Wielding Provocateur]" in ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' 16 January 2006</ref> The distinction among types of history books rests upon the research techniques used in writing a history. Verifiability, accuracy, and openness to criticism are central tenets of historical [[Scholarly method|scholarship]]. When these techniques are sidestepped, the presented historical information might be deliberately deceptive, a "revised history".

===Denial===
{{see also|Conspiracy theory|Denialism|Genocide denial}}

Denial is defensively protecting information from being shared with other historians, and claiming that facts are untrue, especially denial of the [[war crimes]] and [[crimes against humanity]] perpetrated in the course of [[World War&nbsp;II]] (1939–1945) and [[the Holocaust]] (1933–1945). The negationist historian protects the historical-revisionism project by [[blame shifting]], censorship, distraction, and [[media manipulation]]; occasionally, denial by protection includes [[risk management]] for the physical security of revisionist sources.

===Relativization and trivialization===
{{see also|Holocaust trivialization}}
Comparing certain historical atrocities to other crimes is the practice of relativization, interpretation by moral judgements, to alter public perception of the first historical atrocity. Although such comparisons often occur in negationist history, their pronouncement is not usually part of revisionist intentions upon the historical facts, but an opinion of [[moral judgement]].
* The Holocaust and [[Nazism]]: The historian [[Deborah Lipstadt]] says that the concept of "comparable Allied wrongs", such as the [[expulsion of Germans after World War II]] from [[Lebensraum|Nazi-colonized lands]] and the formal [[Allied war crimes during World War II|Allied war crimes]], is at the centre of, and is a continually repeated theme of, contemporary [[Holocaust denial]], and that such relativization presents "immoral equivalencies".<ref>Barry Loberfeld, [http://abcdunlimited.com/ideas/denying.html "Denying the Other Holocausts"]: Professor Lipstadt's Own Assault on Truth and Memory, [[Liberty (1987)|Liberty]], May 2002</ref>
* Some proponents of the [[Lost Cause of the Confederacy]] use certain historical examples of non-[[chattel slavery]] in discussions on the role of the slave system of the South, however insofar as it is to further this ideological point it obscures and downplays the specificities of the American slave system- both its place in history, and comparison to other such systems overall. For example, court decisions and statutes mandated multi-generational slavery unlike many other slave systems, and further beyond that stated that a freedman could never become a citizen of the United States. These measures, related to perpetuation and racist characterization besides further restrictions on life even outside slavery in support of it distinguished the system compared to all, or an overwhelming amount of historical systems
* Connected to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy is the [[Irish slaves myth]], a pseudo-historical narrative which conflates the experiences of [[Irish indentured servants]] and [[Atlantic slave trade|enslaved Africans]] in the [[Americas]]. This distortion, which was historically promoted by [[Irish nationalism|Irish nationalists]] such as [[John Mitchel]], has in the modern-day been promoted by [[White supremacy|white supremacists]] in the United States to negate the mistreatment experienced by [[African Americans]] (such as [[Racism in the United States|racism]] and [[Racial segregation in the United States|segregation]]), also opposing [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] [[Reparations for slavery in the United States|reparations]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Linehan|first=Hugh|title=Sinn Féin not allowing facts derail good 'Irish slaves' yarn|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-not-allowing-facts-derail-good-irish-slaves-yarn-1.2644397|access-date=30 March 2021|newspaper=The Irish Times|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Kennedy|first1=Liam|title=Unhappy the Land: The Most Oppressed People Ever, the Irish?|title-link=Unhappy the Land: The Most Oppressed People Ever, the Irish?|date=2015|publisher=Irish Academic Press|isbn=9781785370472|location=Dublin|page=19|language=en}}</ref>