Historians are the ones who break through the myths. Myths are what you’re taught in school. In school they told you all about how the US founding fathers were heroic figures fighting for their freedom…
Did you forget how you wanted to end that or…? 🤷♂️
Regardless, if you don’t think historians are writing history books, what do you think they’re doing? And no, in school they taught me that the US founding fathers founded the US, pretty objective stuff. You know, names, dates, locations, etc. I’m fascinated to hear what else you think I was taught though, this is fun!
No, I think anyone who writes a book of historical facts (hence the name “history book”) based on research is a historian. And if I were lost, that’d fall under cartography, not history. See, cartography is the study of making maps. Maps are to cartographers as history books are to historians. Make sense?
Damn, selective reading is a tough diagnosis. Is there a pattern, like you only understand every other word or something, or is it just completely random?
Historians are the ones who break through the myths. Myths are what you’re taught in school. In school they told you all about how the US founding fathers were heroic figures fighting for their freedom…
Did you forget how you wanted to end that or…? 🤷♂️
Regardless, if you don’t think historians are writing history books, what do you think they’re doing? And no, in school they taught me that the US founding fathers founded the US, pretty objective stuff. You know, names, dates, locations, etc. I’m fascinated to hear what else you think I was taught though, this is fun!
Researching it and writing papers for other historians.
Do you think most historians write popular history books for non-historians?
No, but I do think history books are by definition written by historians.
So, you think anybody who writes a book about history is a historian? No wonder you are so lost.
No, I think anyone who writes a book of historical facts (hence the name “history book”) based on research is a historian. And if I were lost, that’d fall under cartography, not history. See, cartography is the study of making maps. Maps are to cartographers as history books are to historians. Make sense?
So, writing a book makes you a historian. It’s not studying history?
Damn, selective reading is a tough diagnosis. Is there a pattern, like you only understand every other word or something, or is it just completely random?
Are you dodging the question? What makes someone a historian? Is anybody who writes a book on history automatically an authority on history?