Negasionisme sejarah

Negasionisme sejarah^[1][2] atau denialisme adalah penyimpangan tidak sah atas catatan sejarah. Hal ini sering kali secara tidak tepat atau sengaja disalahartikan sebagai revisionisme sejarah, meski istilah itu juga menunjukkan upaya akademis yang sah untuk menafsirkan ulang catatan sejarah dan mempertanyakan pandangan yang diterima.^[3]

Dalam upaya untuk merivisi masa lalu, revisionisme sejarah yang tidak sah dapat menggunakan teknik yang tidak dapat diterima dalam wacana sejarah yang benar. Di antaranya seperti menyajikan dokumen yang dikenal palsu sebagai dokumen asli, menciptakan alasan ulung tetapi tidak masuk akal mengenai keaslian dokumen, mempertalikan kesimpulan dengan buku atau sumber yang menyatakan sebaliknya, memanipulasi seri statistik untuk mendukung sudut pandang yang diinginkan, dan secara sengaja salah menerjemahkan dokumen (dalam bahasa lain).^[4]

Beberapa negara seperti Jerman, telah mengkriminalisasi revisi negasionis dari peristiwa-peristiwa tertentu, dan negara lainnya mengambil posisi yang lebih hati-hati karena berbagai alasan, seperti perlindungan kebebasan berbicara, sementara lainnya mengamanatkan pandangan negasionis.

Contoh-contoh utama dari negasionisme termasuk penyangkalan pembantaian tertuduh komunis pada 1960-an di Indonesia, penyangkalan Holokaus, penyangkalan Genosida Armenia, Alasan Kekalahan Konfederasi, penyangkalan kejahatan perang Jepang^[5][6] dan penyangkalan kejahatan Soviet.

Dalam literatur, konsekuensi negasionisme sejarah telah digambarkan secara imajinatif dalam beberapa karya fiksi, seperti Nineteen Eighty-Four karya George Orwell. Pada masa modern, negasionisme dapat menyebar melalui media baru seperti internet.

1. ^ Istilah "negasionisme" berasal neologisme Bahasa Prancis négationnisme, menunjukkan penolakan Holokaus.(Kornberg, Jacques. The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide.(Review) (book review), Shofar, January 2001). It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as (PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference 31 August–7 September 2001 "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism."
   Pascale Bloch has written in International law: Response to Professor Fronza's The punishment of Negationism (Accessed ProQuest Database, 12 October 2011) that:

   "[R]evisionists" are understood as "negationists" in order to differentiate them from "historical revisionists" since their goal is either to prove that the Holocaust did not exist or to introduce confusion regarding the victims and German executioners regardless of historical and scientific methodology and evidence. For those reasons, the term "revisionism" is often considered confusing since it conceals misleading ideologies that purport to avoid disapproval by presenting "revisions" of the past based on pseudo-scientific methods, while really they are a part of negationism.

2. ^ Kriss Ravetto (2001). The Unmaking of Fascist Aesthetics, University of Minnesota Press ISBN 0-8166-3743-1. p. 33
3. ^ "The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a re-examination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a 'certain body of irrefutable evidence' or a 'convergence of evidence' that suggest that an event–like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust–did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence. ... " Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0-202-30670-4, p. 154.
4. ^ Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans, 2001, ISBN 0-465-02153-0. p. 145. The author is a professor of Modern History, at the University of Cambridge, and was a major expert-witness in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial; the book presents his perspective of the trial, and the expert-witness report, including his research about the Dresden death count.
5. ^ Klaus Mehnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952), on the illegitimate use of history in the 1934–1952 period.
6. ^ Roger D. Markwick, Rewriting history in Soviet Russia: the politics of revisionist historiography, 1956–1974 New York ; Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, on legitimate Soviet Historiography particularly in the post 1956 period.