I find it amusing the way "revisionist" seems to be used as a sneer word - as if the assumption is that the first account of what happened has to be regarded as holy writ, and any attempt to revise it to take into account facts that were left out must be seen as an attempt to distort the truth.

All real historical writing has to be revisionist, in the sense that it is trying to take into account all the facts about what happened, and all the information about the reasons it happened.

I can't remmber who it was commented that "You never hear people complaining about revisionist dentistry".

What is wrong and to be fought against is when people pick and choose whatbthey include so as to present a story that distorts the facts about what actually happened, and why it happened; and they do it for reasons that have nothing to do with telling the truth - people who deny that the Holocaust involved genocide against the Jews, or who ignore the accompanying genocide against Gypsies. Or these Japanese schoolbooks which, from what I have read, very much plays down what was done by the Japanese military machine to people in China and Korea.

But the problem isn't that they are revisionists, it is that the history they tell is in serious need of revision.

.................
In this country, we generally do ok at looking at the American Revolution as history My impression - from a distance - is that there is still some way to go before it is generally recognised that it was in a real sense a civil war, with about as many Americans engaged on the losing side, and with some good reasons for doing so, especially when it came to Black soldiers and Native Americans. (And that is probably just as true of people in England, if they ever turn their attention to the events of the period, which is fairly rare.)