...singling out, inter alia, the 1619 Project, the misuse of history by conservative Supreme Court justices, ignoring the role of Africans in the slave trade, and a few other items. He has now issued an absurd and abject apology:
My...Perspectives on History column has generated anger and dismay among many of our colleagues and members. I take full responsibility that it did not convey what I intended and for the harm that it has caused. I had hoped to open a conversation on how we “do” history in our current politically charged environment. Instead, I foreclosed this conversation for many members, causing harm to colleagues, the discipline, and the Association.
As Sam Haselby, the Aeon editor, put it on Twitter: "What nonsense. He didn't harm anyone. He just published a (really) bad op-ed. There's so much real violence in the US on a social level, it's barbaric. People who accused him of hurting people or doing violence need a reality check." I actually don't think it's "really bad," although it was fairly criticized for not using any examples of actual historians guilty of presentism. Here is some of the representative Twitter criticism (ranging from the quasi-substantive to the childish): a history professor at Knox College; a graduate student; some random Twitterati; and an historian at U of Virginia.
I would have assumed that just as "philosophy Twitter" is heavily skewed towards the juvenile and the Wokerati, so too is "history Twitter." On the other hand, the fact that he felt compelled to issue this grovelling apology is a very bad sign about the academic discipline of history. Will he now be ousted from office for expressing incorrect thoughts?
Recent Comments