You can certainly call yourself a “skeptic” while doing so, if you like. Historically, skepticism has accommodated religious fundamentalism, witch hunts, and much else. It’s not like you’re tarnishing a spotless brand.
-
-
Show this thread
-
To say you’re doing so in defence of academic freedom seems more of a reach, inasmuch as you’re getting political authorities to weigh in on what academics use in classrooms. To say you’re doing so in defence of scholarship you know nothing of and never cared about is comical.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And... You are treading seriously close to a different field called Sociology.
-
There is a certain third of the population who does not like any of the humanities because they threaten the status quo.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Re “If you think it is historians’ job to unite people in the present rather than to analyze the past,” etc. Strong views on a mystery situation. Who or what is the context? Who or what says that historians do something other than study history in an academically rigorous way?
-
The State of Texas is in the midst of passing a law for how history is allowed to be taughthttps://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_609a96c8e4b063dccea1a3ef …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
In the spirit of uniting us historians should always buy the first round. Looking at you,
@KevinMKruseThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What are preposterous misrepresentation
-
You picked a weird spot in the timeline of this story to chime in about ‘misrepresentation’. Back that up 400 years for the bigger picture.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Forgive me, but am i missing something here?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.