Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
In any event, I think the real issue for military history is not that 'academics' are hostile to it (I mean, some are, but only some; it's not the issue). The issue is that history as a discipline writ large is chronically underfunded:https://twitter.com/whsieh/status/1356250624564867080 …
Every time the economy turns down, universities cut the Humanities, but then when the economy turns back up, none of those cuts are made good:https://twitter.com/rbthisted/status/1356244520220979201 …
![◼◼◼[̕D̴A̡T͘͟͡Ą͠ ͘E͢͠X̀͜͝P̶̨͠UN̡͜͝G͠E͏͝D]̛̀͘◼◼◼](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/831624243959967744/yOtJ5xtZ_normal.jpg)
And then we wonder why we're in a pandemic with great science (vaccines, my god, in less than a year!) but catastrophic leadership. And the answer is, because we cut the leadership training budget!https://acoup.blog/2020/07/03/collections-the-practical-case-on-why-we-need-the-humanities/ …
In any event, military history can hardly be expected, as a subfield of history, to survive the collapse of the discipline of history. If you want to save military history, don't complain to ivory tower academics. Tell your legislators to fund the humanities.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
