Implications of denialism and revisionism in historiographical practice

a brief discussion

Abstract

The present article seeks to discuss the ethical and political roles of historical writing and historians in light of the surge in historical revisionism and denialism. We understand that critical reflection on the uses of the past brings the political dimension of historians’ work to the forefront while creating opportunities for these professionals to contribute to justice and democracy. Accordingly, two brief studies will be conducted on contexts where the responsibilities of historians have been highlighted: the successive “memory laws” in France and the National Truth Commission in Brazil. We emphasize that this work is a literature review rather than an original research article. Our aim is to explore how judicial or quasi-judicial measures designed to redress victims or penalize revisionism and denialism from a legal perspective have sparked intense debates among historians. The fundamental objective is to present, in broad terms, the possible positions within the community of historians on how to address the effects of revisionist and denialist practices. In other words, while there seems to be consensus that such reappropriations of the past are harmful, there are evident divergences regarding the stances historians should—or can—adopt in response to this issue.