This is bad and it reflects badly also on the handful of senior liberal historians who decided they wanted a hyperbolic fight on these issues rather than the tempered scholarly debate most of the discipline preferred.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1302698584333115392 …
-
-
I don't see how the Trump Administration's exploiting the Wilentz/Wood arguments reflects poorly on the historians. Good arguments are often hijacked by bad actors. I don't think they were untoward in their assessment of the project, but that's me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When has the endorsement (or lack thereof) by top scholars ever encouraged or prevented Trump from doing something?
-
If you look at the right-wing polemics on this in WSJ, National Review etc., they constantly quote Wilentz & co. For obvious reasons, since it gives legitimacy & appearance of trans-ideological consensus.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Both Wilentz and Wood made measured academic arguments against one small aspect of the opening essay in “1619”. It was hardly over the top. That would be Twitters reaction to them saying they weren’t sure about one sentence and praising the rest.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nah. It is part and parcel of the movement against critical race theory.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.