Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Like any subfield, military history has its detractors. And sure, I've experienced it. But this piece is trash reporting. He asks one old dude how its going, and he says "only OSU and KSU still do military history." Hastings accepts that?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-31/max-hastings-u-s-universities-declare-war-on-military-history … via @bopinion
Do some f'ing research. The Society of Mil. History has grown substantially and continuously over the last 30 years; it has diversified its reach and its appeal. Some unis have ADDED programs in military history (notably N. Texas and S. Mississ.) Emory is now a center for Asian
military history. UNC's Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense (nearly 2/5 history!) has over 400 majors (http://pwad.unc.edu ). Temple, Auburn, Citadel, Alabama, Wisconsin, UNC, Duke, Louisville (and that's just top of my head). Columbia fought to keep
their military historian. Duke has added one and seeks another (albeit in Public Policy--evidence that some prejudice DOES exist). UNC has FOUR straight up TT military historians, plus TWO diplomatic, plus TWO full-time adjuncts in mil. hist.
It's also true that many Ph.D.s in military history end up in Pro. Mil. Education or federal history offices, but so what? THey get jobs, and the need for yet more Ph.D.s of any field is clearly limited. So a LACK of Ph.D. programs is not a glaring problem (see above list).
If he doesn't for his books what makes you think he does for articles?
Did he major in History at Harvard? He was probably learning about gender issues to learn how to do research.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
