"History is like a constantly changing tree"
About this Quote
Calling history a "constantly changing tree" is an attempt to smuggle revisionism in under the comforting banner of natural growth. A tree sounds wholesome, organic, inevitable: it sprouts new branches, sheds old leaves, and nobody gets too upset because change is framed as life. The metaphor flatters the speaker as a patient gardener or careful arborist, pruning yesterday's errors as fresh evidence blooms. It’s a neat piece of rhetoric because it turns historical argument into ecology: disagreement becomes seasonal variation, not a fight over truth, sources, and accountability.
With David Irving, that framing matters. Irving is notorious not for ordinary reinterpretation but for manipulating the record around Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. In that context, "constantly changing" can function as a pressure-release valve: if history is always shifting, then the line between correction and distortion gets conveniently blurry. The tree image also implies deep roots - a hidden structure beneath the surface - suggesting that what we think we know is just a canopy hiding more "real" truth only the daring researcher can uncover. That posture casts critics as people who fear complexity, rather than people who’ve checked the citations.
The subtext is a claim to legitimacy: my revisions are just history doing what it does. But the politics of memory aren’t botanical. They’re human, documented, litigated in archives, and policed by standards. The metaphor’s persuasive power is precisely its evasiveness: it aestheticizes contestation while quietly ducking the question that matters most - who’s shaping the tree, and for what purpose?
With David Irving, that framing matters. Irving is notorious not for ordinary reinterpretation but for manipulating the record around Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. In that context, "constantly changing" can function as a pressure-release valve: if history is always shifting, then the line between correction and distortion gets conveniently blurry. The tree image also implies deep roots - a hidden structure beneath the surface - suggesting that what we think we know is just a canopy hiding more "real" truth only the daring researcher can uncover. That posture casts critics as people who fear complexity, rather than people who’ve checked the citations.
The subtext is a claim to legitimacy: my revisions are just history doing what it does. But the politics of memory aren’t botanical. They’re human, documented, litigated in archives, and policed by standards. The metaphor’s persuasive power is precisely its evasiveness: it aestheticizes contestation while quietly ducking the question that matters most - who’s shaping the tree, and for what purpose?
Quote Details
| Topic | Wisdom |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List
