Historians are isolated in professional cocoons, fiddling with footnotes rather than bringing the past to light for a broader audiencehttps://econ.st/2yIC8Zu
-
-
- Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
And The Economist just does not understand. There are plenty of books out there for the average reader's interest. The writer of this view above is a dope and has not really investigated current books. See Andrew Roberts on Churchill for accessibility.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Meanwhile, in America there's Dan Howe's contribution to Oxford's U.S. history What Hath God Wrought. Jared Diamond is knocked for writing best sellers.
-
Jared Diamond is not a historian.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
It is difficult to trust historians. Show me just one, no more than one, that foersaw the end of the Soviet Union.
-
I'm not sure you understand what HISTORY is. Now, let's talk about economist's ability to predict the economy....
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
This is a bad, bad take, and a really bad, bad look.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Seriously? Every professional historian I know (including me) writes for a broad public audience as well as an audience of fellow historians. We write op-eds, blog posts, journalism, trade books. Yes, we also fiddle with footnotes--that's called professional honesty
-
We contribute material to and appear on documentaries too.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.