Thank you for posting this. The topic is something I have faced with “professional” historians in the past - my counter is always it should be the value/validity of the idea, not the background of the person, which should be the focus of discussion and debate.
You are most welcome. (Sometimes, when I'm feeling mischievous, I drop the name of Barbara Tuchman, a self-trained historian who wrote several fine books, all of which sold very well, in places well peopled with academic historians. The apoplexy that results is highly entertaining.)
Thank you for posting this. The topic is something I have faced with “professional” historians in the past - my counter is always it should be the value/validity of the idea, not the background of the person, which should be the focus of discussion and debate.
You are most welcome. (Sometimes, when I'm feeling mischievous, I drop the name of Barbara Tuchman, a self-trained historian who wrote several fine books, all of which sold very well, in places well peopled with academic historians. The apoplexy that results is highly entertaining.)
1952 “fight for their own opinions”, 1996 “situate self in the narrative” - Ruth Behar. A significant difference.