You obviously believe revisionist history is always a negative, and that there are no benefits to reevaluation of the historical record. For instance, in 1930 Seattle newspapers discussed the "Seattle Royal Colored Giants", but when writing about the team in 2015, I typically refer to them as the "Seattle Royal Giants". Is that revisionist? Yes, but a way to discuss the topic without referencing and thereby emphasizing negative terminology of the day. It in no way diminishes understanding of the subject. Just my opinion, Ty