In reply to:
And is the term revisionist a valid criticism if what it describes is an attempt to show the truth of what had previously been no more than an idealized myth?
I think its a valid criticism when newspeak is being introduced in an effort to bring down the historical figures a peg or two. "Founding Brother" has less prestige or authority than "Founding Father," and I suspect that those who advocate the use in common speech of the former term do so because they object to the literal expression of paternalism in the latter.
As to the truth vs. idealized myth, which is which? I'm sure the men who shaped our country were flawed persons, and had the prejudices of their day in addition to whatever individual vices they carried. They probably thought, for example, that other races were so beneath whites that it would be overstating the obvious to say so. Their attitudes toward women were probably less than liberal by today's standards. They weren't gods, but I don't think that detracts from their lasting civic accomplishments.
