Sorry...had to go off without finishing.

Revisionism is an interesting concept. Does it mean that we revise the actual events which occurred when we write our histories or dos it mean that we look at events from our own point of view (the historian's perspective), which is probably different from that of other nations or even other individuals in our own nation? Or does it mean that we revise our history books as our pespective changes?

I disagree that history is always written by the winners; because it really can't be 'history,' in the sense of a neutral examination of causes, events and results, until both the winners and losers, and probably their children and grandchildren, are dead and gone. It has only been in the last few decades that we have been able to view the conquest and settlement of the American West as anything other than "good guys vs. bad guys," and much of the historical dialogue has actually degenerated to arguments over who was actually good or bad. For more contemporary examples, The (Irish) Easter Rebellion has been over for more than 80 years, World War II has been over for nearly 60 years and the Vietnam War for more than 30, yet the events of both still arouse nearly as much passion as if they ended yesterday. It will be at least another generation before any of them really moves from the category of current events to that of history. In this country, we generally do ok at looking at the American Revolution as history, and we are coming closer to seeing the Civil War in the same context.