More On Its All Just Names and Dates

I received this comment on my post on the general misunderstanding of the public in regards to what is history. Here is the comment:

“This is what I can't stand about academia. Yeah, you're smarter than a lot of people. Get off your high horse and listen to that person. They probably will tell you something incorrect or something that you already know, but they might not. By underestimating the public, you dissuade the public from entering your field. History isn't any different than other subjects- you can learn about it, to an extent, on your own. I'm not discrediting the work that you have done, I really do respect it. I aspire to become a historian- but I don't want to lose my humbleness as I work.”

Where do I start with this comment? This person clearly did not understand the point of my previous post. So I’m going to climb down off my “high horse” and clarify some things and in the meantime, hopefully, poke holes in the comment.

First of all, this is a very good example of the public’s misunderstanding of history. Well, it’s not about getting facts correct or incorrect. Though I am told some outrageous things that people believed happened in the past, this is not what historians do. But let me move away from this issue.

Next point, the post wasn’t about me underestimating the general public, but rather the public’s misunderstanding of what it is that historians do in their profession. As far as dissuading people from entering my field, well, I don’t care if the people want to enter my field or not. Just do not tell me what history is!

Now the point about history not being any different than other subjects and that anyone can learn history and they can do so on their own. I will make a concession, like other subjects, history can be learned by anybody. This point is true, but to claim that you can do so on your own, which is what I used to think, is preposterous. One can read books, like those written by David McCullough and text books, which will give a general outline about the past which can be useful, but will leave them lacking a true historical understanding of the past. There are many important things that one cannot learn by reading horrible Cokie Roberts books and other popular histories. For example, sitting around reading books will not teach a person how to properly interrogate primary sources. It will not teach someone how to read what is not written in primary sources. Cokie Roberts, David McCullough, and others will not teach someone how to construct a complex historical argument. Those authors will not even teach someone how to construct a simple argument because they tell stories and don’t debate the past.

Oh yeah, I don’t consider myself a member of academe because I feel that those how are academics have such a mortifying an acerbic disgust for the public. I don’t hate the public, but I am increasingly angered and frustrated by the public’s total lack of understanding of what it is that historians do. Besides I believe that they, academics, are not doing a thorough job writing history for the general public, which is just as maddening as this commenter. Historians should write for the public. History is for the masses, but they deserve good history. David Hackett Fischer, James McPherson, Gordon S. Wood, and Eric Foner are great examples of academics that write for the public. This is the kind of history that the public deserves.