While some historians absolutely have political beliefs that tilt toward classical liberalism or traditional conservatism, our training in the way we read and understand sources requires a particular set of ethics that we have developed as a profession.
We follow the direction the primary sources show us. We deal in the business of interpretation too, but the ethics of our training require us to explain what we think the sources are showing. Not our political opinions.
Believe me when I say that often the sources show the opposite of what I wish they did. But it is my job to say, "this is the history. It is not an analog. It may not map onto the present in the way you wish."
This is especially true of histories of suffrage, abortion, and birth control for example (my own subfields).
Its also really important I think to share how rigorously trained historians are, including Heather. But also the rest of us. Her colleagues.
We spend a minimum of 5 years getting a PhD. Two years of coursework. A year studying for incredibly hard comprehensive exams which make or break you. We read hundreds of books and articles to prepare for a set of exams that take a week, sometimes two, both oral and written.
Then a year in the archives, preparation of a dissertation prospectus, followed by more archival research, reading, and writing the dissertation. At the end, you've completed what for many is Draft 1 of a first book.
Many people take 7 or even 8 years, but most of us are forced to finish in 6 because of funding constraints. The learning and reading, though, never stops as a professor because you keep up with the literature and new historiographical approaches.
All that is to say, historians know the secondary literature and we understand the context of original sources in a very wide and deep way.
We are not journalists or political commentators. We can't predict the future either. But we are informed and are careful scholars. I know no other historians (and I know a lot, across the nation and abroad) who are MAGA or open Trump supporters. We don't deal in lies so it makes it impossible.
Co-sign. Thank you for this thread, Lauren.
One i can think of is Kevin Roberts, president of Heritage Foundation - PhD in History at University of Texas in Austin, then assistant professor of History at New Mexico State. No profession is 100% innocent. Instead I like to ask: are the decent ethical members well organised?
This is great work.
Former professor of History and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (PhD 1971 Tulane)?
The one example I could think of are judges and law professors who masquerade as historians in their obsession with originalism, but that, my friends, is another thread.
This is true. I know plenty of conservative historians (I work in Texas) but none are Trumpers. They've mostly left the GOP.
This thread is a good example of why education in general is such a threat to autocrats. Educators are their kryptonite.
Would any of you & your fellow historians like to join the non-partisan movement (& admittedly, help make it more of an actual movement) against the Trump regime's fascism & high treason, MADA? #MakeAmericaDemocraticAgain
Susan Shelly, columnist/Opinionist for the OC Register and other conservative newspapers is Pro-Trump and has a degree in History from CSUN (California State University of Northridge). She is a scary woman, who why she studied history, has not seemed to learn anything from studying.
Does she have a PhD? Big difference between BA and PhD as i describe in the thread
crowdiary.com
crowdiary.com
And often with sources that are in our second or third language (which we’ve had to pass a translation exam for in the first years of our studies).