Wp/syl/ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠡ ꠛꠤꠔꠟꠣꠘꠤ

< Wp‎ | syl
Wp > syl > ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠡ ꠛꠤꠔꠟꠣꠘꠤ

ꠁꠈꠣꠘꠧ (ꠜꠣꠡꠣꠛꠖꠟ) ꠇꠞꠤ ꠀꠘꠣ ꠅꠁꠔ ꠙꠣꠞꠦ ꠄꠞ꠆ꠖꠣꠄ ꠁ ꠙꠣꠔꠣ ꠀꠞꠅ ꠅꠘꠥꠛꠣꠖ ꠇꠞꠤ ꠖꠤꠔꠣ ꠙꠣꠞꠂꠘ

w:WP:STUB ꠁ ꠙꠣꠔꠣ ꠁꠈꠣꠘ ꠀꠛꠧ ꠇꠥꠠꠤ ꠞꠂꠍꠦ ⁕ ꠈꠣꠟꠤ ꠝꠣꠔ ꠃꠑꠣꠘꠤꠞ ꠟꠣꠉꠤ ꠀꠞꠝ꠆ꠛ ꠇꠞꠣ ꠅꠁꠍꠦ ⁕ ꠁꠟꠣꠘ ꠀꠞꠅ ꠘꠄꠀ ꠇꠥꠠꠤꠘ꠆ꠔꠞ ꠙꠣꠔꠣꠁꠘ ꠖꠦꠈꠂꠘ ⁕ ꠁ ꠛꠦꠙꠣꠞꠦ ꠀꠙꠘꠣꠁꠘ꠆ꠔꠞ ꠇꠥꠘꠔꠣ ꠙꠥꠞꠣꠘꠤꠞ ꠕꠣꠇ꠆ꠟꠦ ꠟꠇ꠆ꠖꠤ ꠟꠦꠈꠤꠀ ꠙꠣꠔꠣ ꠁꠈꠣꠘ ꠀꠞꠧ ꠛꠟꠣꠁꠔꠣ ꠙꠣꠞꠂꠘ ⁕

ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠡ ꠛꠤꠔꠟꠣꠘꠤ
concept, ideology, forgery
Subclass ofdenialism, fringe theory ꠟꠦꠈ
Has usepropaganda ꠟꠦꠈ
Named byHenry Rousso ꠟꠦꠈ
Has goalpolitical myth ꠟꠦꠈ
Usesdenial, revision, deception, false document, cover-up ꠟꠦꠈ
Model itemHolocaust denial ꠟꠦꠈ

Purposes

edit

Usually, the purpose of historical negation is to achieve a national, political aim, by transferring war guilt, demonizing an enemy, providing an illusion of victory, or preserving a friendship.Template:Wp/syl/Cn

Ideological influence

edit

Template:Wp/syl/See also The principal functions of negationist history are the abilities to control ideological and political influence.

History is a social resource that contributes to shaping national identity, culture, and the public memory. Through the study of history, people are imbued with a particular cultural identity; therefore, by negatively revising history, the negationist can craft a specific, ideological identity. Because historians are credited as people who single-mindedly pursue truth, by way of fact, negationist historians capitalize on the historian's professional credibility, and present their pseudohistory as true scholarship. By adding a measure of credibility to the work of revised history, the ideas of the negationist historian are more readily accepted in the public mind. As such, professional historians recognize the revisionist practice of historical negationism as the work of "truth-seekers" finding different truths in the historical record to fit their political, social, and ideological contexts.Template:Wp/syl/Cn

Political influence

edit

History provides insight into past political policies and consequences, and thus assists people in extrapolating political implications for contemporary society. Historical negationism is applied to cultivate a specific political myth, sometimes with official consent from the government, whereby self-taught, amateur, and dissident academic historians either manipulate or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve political ends. For example, after the late 1930s in the Soviet Union, the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and historiography in the Soviet Union treated reality and the party line as the same intellectual entity, especially in regards to the Russian Civil War and peasants rebellions;[1] Soviet historical negationism advanced a specific, political, and ideological agenda about Russia and its place in world history.[2]

Techniques

edit

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.[3] The revision techniques of historical negationism operate in the intellectual space of public debate for the advancement of a given interpretation of history and the cultural perspective of the "revised history".[4] 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.[5] Rather than submit their works for peer review, negationist historians rewrite history and use logical fallacies to construct arguments that will obtain the desired results, a "revised history" that supports an agenda – political, ideological, religious, etc.[6]

In the practice of historiography, the British historian Richard J. Evans describes the technical differences, between 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."[7]

Deception

edit

Template:Wp/syl/See also Deception includes falsifying information, 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 ideological goal, or both. The field of history distinguishes among history books based upon credible, verifiable sources, which were peer-reviewed before publication; and deceptive history books, based upon unreliable sources, which were not submitted for peer review.[8] 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 scholarship. When these techniques are sidestepped, the presented historical information might be deliberately deceptive, a "revised history".

Denial

edit

Template:Wp/syl/See also 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 the World War II (1939–45) and the Holocaust (1933–45). 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

edit

Template:Wp/syl/See also 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.


==ꠀꠞꠧ ꠖꠦꠈꠂꠘ==

ꠕꠥꠇꠣꠘꠤ

edit
                   

  This is an open test wiki of the Wikimedia Incubator. You can search for other projects in Sylheti language: Sylheti Wikipedia · Sylheti Wiktionary · Sylheti Wikibooks · Sylheti Wikinews · Sylheti Wikiquote · Sylheti Wikivoyage · Sylheti Wikisource · Sylheti Wikiversity

ꠀꠞ꠆ꠔꠣꠔ

ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠙꠤꠒꠤꠀ | ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠡꠛ꠆ꠖꠣꠁꠘ | ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠛꠁꠀꠁꠘ | ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠈꠛꠞ | ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠒꠣꠇ | ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠍꠚꠞ

  1. Taisia Osipova, "Peasant rebellions: Origin, Scope, Design and Consequences", in Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The Revolution and the Civil Wars, Yale University Press, 1997, Wp/syl/ISBN 0-300-06706-2. pp. 154–76.
  2. Roger D. Markwick, Donald J. Raleigh, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, Wp/syl/ISBN 0-333-79209-2, pp. 4–5.
  3. Tennent H. Bagley, Spy Wars¸ Yale University Press, 2007. Wp/syl/ISBN 0-300-12198-9, Wp/syl/ISBN 978-0-300-12198-8, p. 105.
  4. Dionne, E.J. Jr. 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.
  5. Nagorski, Andrew. 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. Template:Wp/syl/ISSN
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Evans-145
  7. Richard J. Evans. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, 6. General Conclusion Template:Wp/syl/Webarchive Paragraphs 6.20,6.21
  8. Falsifier:
  9. Barry Loberfeld, "Denying the Other Holocausts": Professor Lipstadt's Own Assault on Truth and Memory, Liberty, May 2002
  10. Lua error in Module:Wp/syl/Citation/CS1 at line 4118: attempt to index field 'date_names' (a nil value).
  11. Script error: No such module "Module:Wp/syl/citation/CS1".