Are Online Discussions...."A Pernicious Waste of Scholarly Time"?

SWMODave

Sergeant Major
Thread Medic
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Location
Southwest Missouri
civil war history sept 2019 novice bloggers.jpg

This is being represented as coming from the September 2019 issue of 'Civil War History'.

I was wondering if anyone subscribed and could tell me if the context of this paragraph does or does not reflect the overall tone of the article.
 
If an author is going to truly cover their subject, there needs to be some work on foot rather than on butt. For instance writing about long rifles in the CW -- get out and shoot some of them, soon to realize that perhaps there's more to CW infantrymen than charts and figures. Perhaps many recruits were as good and accurate with a rifle as anyone today is, given the opportunity to practice a little. Point is, even if only 20 percent of recruits could hit a target past 200 yards that's enough to say that rifling and the Minie ball were revolutionary in CW combat (imho it seems that some who buy into Hess' theory that rifling was not significant would not admit they themselves were poor shots and unreliable, yet still suppose "typical recruits" were, per Hess).

I only pick Hess' views on that topic because its indicative that he perhaps is a bit guilty of ivory tower syndrome after all. That's not such a great sin -- he did work hard to obtain his credentials -- but rather just to say that common sources, those who post to forums for instance, may have a range of experience beyond that of academia in certain areas. A college degree simply is not a guarantee of expert status. Some authors and academics know and embrace this, and highly value "folk" input.
 
Vote Here:
One of the contributors here post a map of regional emigration, many months past. I don't think any academic writer ever identified that the census supported what they all thought back in the 19th century. Slavery was very discouraging for white labor, and the disease environment in the south was dangerous. Opinion became more divided because so many white people gave up on slavery and moved away from the south.
 
Vote Here:
It’s frankly amazing and completely out of touch to state that blogging is a “waste of scholarly time”.

It’s terrible career advice for any aspiring historian too. Having any kind of social media experience is a big help in getting a job in the public history feild, it’s definitely something that employers like to see. So it’s hardly a waste of time.

Frankly speaking, writing academically far more a waste of time, since very few people ever read such works outside of a colligate setting.

So many people are infuriatingly hidebound and I fear history only serves to increase that particular personality trait in some.
 
Vote Here:
My experience with bloggers has been a lot like friends of mine who opened bars & restaurants. They spent a lot of time drinking & eating in those places, so on the the basis of that they thought they knew how to run a bar-restaurant. The difference between publishing a book after decades of research on original documents & peer reviews with someone who has ("I have read almost three books..." is my favorite citation) only read secondary documents, quotes they got off the internet & other blog posts is a chasm. Real historians make accountants look like three year olds playing with crayons.

A long time ago, a very wise person told me how to tell a person who was knowledgable & one who is just spouting off. One always uses a lot of qualifying terms, in this case, as we understand it, according to this source, etc. The ignorant person is always adamant. That is because they only know one thing about the subject & believe that is all there is to know. Absolute, profound certainty is the mark of almost every blogger I have ever read & that speaks for itself.

The reason blogs have no academic standing is that they are almost universally unsupported by either research or logic. You don't footnote somebody's what if speculations.
 
Vote Here:
My experience with bloggers has been a lot like friends of mine who opened bars & restaurants. They spent a lot of time drinking & eating in those places, so on the the basis of that they thought they knew how to run a bar-restaurant. The difference between publishing a book after decades of research on original documents & peer reviews with someone who has ("I have read almost three books..." is my favorite citation) only read secondary documents, quotes they got off the internet & other blog posts is a chasm. Real historians make accountants look like three year olds playing with crayons.

A long time ago, a very wise person told me how to tell a person who was knowledgable & one who is just spouting off. One always uses a lot of qualifying terms, in this case, as we understand it, according to this source, etc. The ignorant person is always adamant. That is because they only know one thing about the subject & believe that is all there is to know. Absolute, profound certainty is the mark of almost every blogger I have ever read & that speaks for itself.

The reason blogs have no academic standing is that they are almost universally unsupported by either research or logic. You don't footnote somebody's what if speculations.
But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.
 
Vote Here:
On a blog, there numerous discussions that avoid the fact if the Confederacy did not convince Missouri and Kentucky to secede, and lost Tennessee, they could not win a conventional war dependent on horses and mules.
1599922102400.png
 
Vote Here:
I haven't read this entire thread, but it seems to me those of us here on the forums are over-reacting to the OP and its message, with which I tended to agree. We think that because we're at least reasonably well-versed about the war and tend to express ourselves accordingly and respectfully, that this applies to "bloggers" in general, which reflection tends to show otherwise. I took him to mean the proliferation of myths, stereotypes, and outright lies we can all recall having heard, including but scarcely limited to "the usual suspects" like Black Confederates; Lee was a traitor; Stanton murdered Lincoln, etc., etc. ad nauseum.
 
Vote Here:
Just a quick perusal of that synopsis told me all that I needed to know, crusty academics who prefer to keep things just the way they are, those guys haven’t even managed to fully utilise the internet to communicate with others in their own field. It’s something you see time and time again, I’ve written a book so therefore I’m an expert or you have no qualifications so therefore your opinion doesn’t count. I’m fed up with those blogs where an individual has to state all of their qualifications, I actually heard one of these self proclaimed experts state that they had numerous qualifications and that they weren’t just ‘an ordinary person, seriously.
I follow a few civil war enthusiasts on YouTube, they haven’t got a Masters Degree or a diploma but they are full of enthusiasm and they’re willing to share ideas, for me that counts for more than some old academic duffer who believes that they are the final word on all things civil war.
I’d rather listen to the people that go out with their metal detectors and do their own research, far better than some archaeologists that hypothesises from a distance and forms an opinion, I’m a big fan of those whom go out and get their hands dirty and share their finds with the rest of us.
Well said.
 
Vote Here:
I'd withhold judgment without reading the full article - the excerpt may be based on statements by some (Guelzo?) who appear to throw out "the baby with the bathwater". This issue about blogs is that literally anyone can start up a blog site whether they have any credentials or not and give the public false or misleading "junk". I've seen a few of those. But, as we also know, there are plenty of biog sites operated by folks who are highly qualified and who do the research. Some, in fact, are operated by so-called "academics" so a blanket statement from an "academic elite" point of view is ironic, to say the least. I don't understand the criticism if it's directed at a forum like this one. It's a forum for discussion and no one person's point of view on anything can be used to say "CWT" said this or that.
I have to agree w this post.
With hold judgement
 
Vote Here:
But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.
Blogging is a perfectly fine activity, but it is not something that a student can use in a footnote.
 
Vote Here:
But blogging about the Civil War is instructive, because it duplicates much of the cause of the Civil War. The fantastic ideas about how the 11 states were going to defeat the 23 states, and the next three territories ready to apply for statehood, echo what happened in the Civil War. Statements how the 11 states might have used cotton to finance the defeat the states that contained most of the naval power, most of the steamboat industry, most of the cast iron production and virtually all of locomotive production, is a reflection of the non fact based beliefs that had be disproven by the real killing and dying.
Blogging is a perfectly fine activity, but it is not something that a student can use in a footnote.
 
Vote Here:
It is indeed a strange theme: what is the difference between a trained Historian and an amateur ?
I mean, when we talk about Ancient History the difference is quite big. For example:

Ancient Greek History: Ancient Greek is a must, Ancient Latin is useful
Ancient Roman History: Ancient Latin is a must, Greek is useful
Medieval History: latin is very useful

In this case there is a big difference between a trained historian and an amateur. I study History with great profit at my University but even with a Master and a Doctorate I won't make of History my job: I do not know those ancient languages. That is sad but true: If I can't read the original words of Herodotus what research can I do ?

The difference is not that big when we talk about more recent History (the American Civil War for example): the difference there is in the research. In my truly humble opinion our good friend Eric is in fact an Historian: he does use the correct method. That is the first important thing. Then he wrote many books on the subject that were critically acclaimed.

In Italy we have many social media dedicated to History. Rome is a thing my friends. It is everywhere: Facebook, youtube, Istagram. Unfortunately the video are often quite a mess.


The first picture of this video is totally wrong: the battle Aniene was fought in the IV Century BC during the Roman Republic, but the Roman Legionary is from the Imperial period (40-50 AD !!!); Gaul was finally subjected to Rome's power in the middle of the I century BC (Gallic Wars 58-51 BC) so the picture is anacronist. Nevertheless the guy is really good, he loves history. His video are very popular and that is a good thing, he does not hurt anyone.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
It is indeed a strange theme: what is the difference between a trained Historian and an amateur ?
I mean, when we talk about Ancient History the difference is quite big. For example:

Ancient Greek History: Ancient Greek is a must, Ancient Latin is useful
Ancient Roman History: Ancient Latin is a must, Greek is useful
Medieval History: latin is very useful

In this case there is a big difference between a trained historian and an amateur. I study History with great profit at my University but even with a Master and a Doctorate I won't make of History my job: I do not know those ancient languages. That is sad but true: If I can't read the original words of Herodotus what research can I do ?

The difference is not that big when we talk about more recent History (the American Civil War for example): the difference there is in the research. In my truly humble opinion our good friend Eric is in fact an Historian: he does use the correct method. That is the first important thing. Then he wrote many books on the subject that were critically acclaimed.

In Italy we have many social media dedicated to History. Rome is a thing my friends. It is everywhere: Facebook, youtube, Istagram. Unfortunately the video are often quite a mess.


The first picture of this video is totally wrong: the battle Aniene was fought in the IV Century BC during the Roman Republic, but the Roman Legionary is from the Imperial period (40-50 AD !!!); Gaul was finally subjected to Rome's power in the middle of the I century BC (Gallic Wars 58-51 BC) so the picture is anacronist. Nevertheless the guy is really good, he loves history. His video are very popular and that is a good thing, he does not hurt anyone.
Does the modern interpretation or translation of Herodotus lose something, is there really anything extra that can be gained from studying the original writing? I’m not asking that question to be difficult but the same could be said for reading the later translation of Tacitus, which I have to add, I always allow for little artistic licence.

You are right of course about Rome being a thing, I’ve travelled to Rome numerous times, traveled the length and breadth of Britain and a few places in Europe exploring Roman history. I spend time in my local area looking for pottery and artefacts which I’ve done with some success and I’ve even developed my own thoughts on how a specific Iron Age hill fort was subjugated. I’m absolutely not a historian although I’ve studied archaeology and read many books on Roman military history. The question I guess, is does my opinion matter less because I haven’t got letters after my name or that I haven’t published any work?

I’ll hold my hands up and declare right now that most of my knowledge comes from qualified historians, the problem of course is that I have to take their word that the research is accurate but there have been many occasions when I’ve seen notable historians repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors only later is it proven that their beliefs are wrong. Its a bit like Chinese whispers and as an enthusiastic amateur I’m at risk of taking something as factual when it’s totally inaccurate.

I’m in total agreement with you that there is a correct method for research, I believe that if any amateur historian wants to be taken seriously then they have to put in the time and research using methods which are recognised by academia.

That post of yours was very interesting and I for one greatly appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts.
 
Vote Here:
A long time ago, a very wise person told me how to tell a person who was knowledgable & one who is just spouting off. One always uses a lot of qualifying terms, in this case, as we understand it, according to this source, etc. The ignorant person is always adamant. That is because they only know one thing about the subject & believe that is all there is to know. Absolute, profound certainty is the mark of almost every blogger I have ever read & that speaks for itself.

The academic world is one of qualifiers, as you mention. But most of the rest of the world it is one that deals in absolutes, especially in communication.

When I was in grade school we were explicitly instructed to write papers as if our argument was established fact.

The reason blogs have no academic standing is that they are almost universally unsupported by either research or logic. You don't footnote somebody's what if speculations.

I have been a contributing blogger for the last few months on a history blog. One of the challenges is that it's not a medium where citing your sources is very easy or practical. In some cases I can link digitized records on the National Archives. I don't want to burn half my alloted word count on footnotes.

Similarly, I've started writing a quarterly local history e-newsletter at work. Information is coming from primary sources, but there's no room to cite them.

Even some book publishers, like History Press, are citation-free even if the author did good primary source research.
 
Vote Here:
The academic world is one of qualifiers, as you mention. But most of the rest of the world it is one that deals in absolutes, especially in communication.

When I was in grade school we were explicitly instructed to write papers as if our argument was established fact.



I have been a contributing blogger for the last few months on a history blog. One of the challenges is that it's not a medium where citing your sources is very easy or practical. In some cases I can link digitized records on the National Archives. I don't want to burn half my alloted word count on footnotes.

Similarly, I've started writing a quarterly local history e-newsletter at work. Information is coming from primary sources, but there's no room to cite them.

Even some book publishers, like History Press, are citation-free even if the author did good primary source research.
Historian Cartoon.jpeg


Need I say more?​
 
Vote Here:
Does the modern interpretation or translation of Herodotus lose something, is there really anything extra that can be gained from studying the original writing? I’m not asking that question to be difficult but the same could be said for reading the later translation of Tacitus, which I have to add, I always allow for little artistic licence.

You are right of course about Rome being a thing, I’ve travelled to Rome numerous times, traveled the length and breadth of Britain and a few places in Europe exploring Roman history. I spend time in my local area looking for pottery and artefacts which I’ve done with some success and I’ve even developed my own thoughts on how a specific Iron Age hill fort was subjugated. I’m absolutely not a historian although I’ve studied archaeology and read many books on Roman military history. The question I guess, is does my opinion matter less because I haven’t got letters after my name or that I haven’t published any work?

I’ll hold my hands up and declare right now that most of my knowledge comes from qualified historians, the problem of course is that I have to take their word that the research is accurate but there have been many occasions when I’ve seen notable historians repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors only later is it proven that their beliefs are wrong. Its a bit like Chinese whispers and as an enthusiastic amateur I’m at risk of taking something as factual when it’s totally inaccurate.

I’m in total agreement with you that there is a correct method for research, I believe that if any amateur historian wants to be taken seriously then they have to put in the time and research using methods which are recognised by academia.

That post of yours was very interesting and I for one greatly appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts.

Yes, unfortunately an historian of Greek and Roman History has to know Greek and Latin. It is a must (maybe implicit): ask any professors of my University; no matter how talented you may be, the original writing is vital. In an historical work historians put many Greek words in their text: it is complicated. In a university course you won't need it (otherwise they would lose money: just imagine, a faculty only open to people who chose a specific school and know Greek and Latin: 400 students instead of 1000 !). You can do almost everything, exept the higher level, the doctorate, the final thing.

You do not need letters after your name but you have at least to prove yourself. Show that you use a correct method of research and you are totally fine ! Of course maybe you won't get a job as a professor. That is quite normal: if you really wanted the job you ahould have picked it in the first place ! It is more a burocratic thing (you know, you have to go through stages: doctorate, reasercher, assistant). Lectures in my opinion are totally fine.

Finally another difference between an amateur and an historian is the time you can put in it. For example, my good friend Michele loves history with all his heart. He can't spend much time on it unfortunately. He has to study and pass his exams in the faculty of law, he has friends and a girlfriend. An hour or less each day ?

I have friends too, but my passion coincides with the subject that I study. Each day, I study to pass History exams, so more than three hours on it.

Do I talk about History with him ? Of course!
 
Vote Here:
I’m in total agreement with you that there is a correct method for research, I believe that if any amateur historian wants to be taken seriously then they have to put in the time and research using methods which are recognised by academia.

Issues of expertise and qualifications have always interested me. Is there any basis for saying that a historian must have academic credentials in the study of history, or is an independent researcher without academic credentials justified in claiming to be a historian, as long as he or she follows recognized standards? And who has the right to say, one way or another?

Roy B.
 
Vote Here:
Issues of expertise and qualifications have always interested me. Is there any basis for saying that a historian must have academic credentials in the study of history, or is an independent researcher without academic credentials justified in claiming to be a historian, as long as he or she follows recognized standards? And who has the right to say, one way or another?

Roy B.

The way I look at it, there's nothing you can learn in college that you can't also learn outside of college as well without racking up a mountain of debt. Just because I've never been to culinary school doesn't mean my mac & cheese will catch fire and explode.
 
Vote Here:
Issues of expertise and qualifications have always interested me. Is there any basis for saying that a historian must have academic credentials in the study of history, or is an independent researcher without academic credentials justified in claiming to be a historian, as long as he or she follows recognized standards? And who has the right to say, one way or another?

Roy B.
I believe you have made a distinction without a difference. Oral history, family history, folk knowledge, anecdotes, personal memoirs & research are all practiced by amateur historians. The difference is the original sources, methodology, historiography, rigorous adherence to standards & peer review that distinguish an academic historian from an amateur.
 
Vote Here:
The way I look at it, there's nothing you can learn in college that you can't also learn outside of college as well without racking up a mountain of debt. Just because I've never been to culinary school doesn't mean my mac & cheese will catch fire and explode.
What you are missing is the mentorship, methodology, & hard earned knowledge that academic historians have worked a lifetime to learn & live to pass along. I can testify from long personal experience, academic historians have a depth & breath of knowledge that no amateur can ever attain. I am well aware that certain individuals can achieve a narrow expertise on their own because I am one of them. I am also well aware that if I hadn't met the skepticism & encouragement of professionals there is no way i could have learned the methodology I needed to get where I am today.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top