Unfortunately, professional historians are often just as partisan and unreliable as Burns in their commentary on current events and their attempts to lecture us on the supposed lessons of history.
Unfortunately, professional historians are often just as partisan and unreliable as Burns in their commentary on current events and their attempts to lecture us on the supposed lessons of history.
Some certainly are, but they don't often get the "pass" people like Burns and Hannah-Jones do. Far too many journalists are being mistaken for historians these days. At least within the historical community there can be room for debate grounded in actual sources. Journalists all too often don't feel constrained by simple things like accuracy and source attribution.
The same is also increasingly true these days when it comes to science and medicine. Case in point Dr Fauci yesterday proclaimed he is not "political."
Unfortunately, professional historians are often just as partisan and unreliable as Burns in their commentary on current events and their attempts to lecture us on the supposed lessons of history.
Some certainly are, but they don't often get the "pass" people like Burns and Hannah-Jones do. Far too many journalists are being mistaken for historians these days. At least within the historical community there can be room for debate grounded in actual sources. Journalists all too often don't feel constrained by simple things like accuracy and source attribution.
The same is also increasingly true these days when it comes to science and medicine. Case in point Dr Fauci yesterday proclaimed he is not "political."
Historian Michael Beschloss went completely bonkers and apocalyptic this past election season. Totally bonkers.
Another example is Timothy Snyder, a very capable historian of Eastern Europe who detects Hitler in TrumpтАЩs every brain fart.