I find it weird that in popular culture, revisionist history means glossing over the bad stuff. In academia, revisionist is the proudly-held label of some feminist historians, and it means "revising history so that women and minorities don't get left out this time." The term is hotly contested as far as I can tell, but I would call Zinn a revisionist, and if you look at the word, it makes sense. It's not about changing history, but seeing it with new eyes, a new vision.
The defendents of the Civil War are simply giving the official story, that it was about "state's rights." When really the Civil War was treason in defense of owning people, and not a whole lot more than that. And if that's a revisionist interpretation, I'm cool with that.
The defendents of the Civil War are simply giving the official story, that it was about "state's rights." When really the Civil War was treason in defense of owning people, and not a whole lot more than that. And if that's a revisionist interpretation, I'm cool with that.