Revisionism vs. Conventional History
Revisionism vs. Conventional HistorySkip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
It is difficult to disagree with any aspect of your editorial ''Colorizing History,'' Aug. 2. All the events leading up to World War II itself and the postwar Stalin era seem accurately stated. So why shouldn't we pounce on revisionists?
One answer is that conventional history becomes a cynical catechism for cold warriors. The ''rogue'' states of Iran, Iraq, and Libya are isolated as much by what Americans read (which is dominated by conventional ideas such as bargaining through strength and eliminating ''terrorist'' states) as by reality itself.
Another answer is that in some of the most regrettable events there is a small chance that an act of good faith and communication would have prevented a catastrophe. Witness the success of former president Jimmy Carter.
Morton Ball Groton, Conn.
The rap on Ramses II - revised
The letter ''Right Place, Wrong Century,'' Aug. 11, highlights the mysterious and confusing nature of ancient Egyptian history. In 1881 a group of tombs was found near Thebes. Ramses II was identified as one of the mummies. Now Ramses II is said to be entombed in the tombs at Abu Simbel, in southern Egypt.
Doug Carlin Pearl City, Hawaii