Funny to choose an example where even the author admits:
> Personally, I don’t wade into these questions much, professionally, or even here on the blog. They honestly don’t interest me very much. Maybe it’s a sign of how post-post-Cold War I am? I don’t know. To me it has always seemed like splitting very fine hairs, trying to make distinctions without much difference. In my mind, the atomic bombings were plainly not ethically very different than the previous firebombings of Japan or Germany
But hey, I’m glad you found an example of a historian that admits there are “hazards” to being a historian. Do you really think this one example of a historian being self aware precludes what I’ve said about historians being dangerous? I think it supports my argument. For every one historian that acknowledges their own bias there are plenty that do not. Just as I would be able to provide examples of amateur historian AI content that even historians would not find problematic. The difference is that I would not use my example to say that AI videos are not dangerous.
Funny in a world of “history” channel where many of these professional historians are used when they can take a break from their regularly programmed conspiracy theories that anybody could with a straight face say they are any less dangerous. The amount of revisionism in history should have been a clue already but how much more defilement of our past can one ignore before calling the entire field out for what it is: a tool for propaganda
How convenient that historians that exhibit behavior that proves my point are not real historians but the ones that exhibit behavior that prove your point qualify.
You seem to believe that professional historians are only so if they support your viewpoint. With that kind of logic how could you possibly be wrong? I didn't realize that we were operating under your magical ability to purity test historians.
Of course it'd be the case that the likes of EP Thompson and Niall Ferguson or Will Durant are passable even with their wildly biased interpretations of history, but dinesh d'souza or david irving are clearly not professionals because, you said so.
> Personally, I don’t wade into these questions much, professionally, or even here on the blog. They honestly don’t interest me very much. Maybe it’s a sign of how post-post-Cold War I am? I don’t know. To me it has always seemed like splitting very fine hairs, trying to make distinctions without much difference. In my mind, the atomic bombings were plainly not ethically very different than the previous firebombings of Japan or Germany
But hey, I’m glad you found an example of a historian that admits there are “hazards” to being a historian. Do you really think this one example of a historian being self aware precludes what I’ve said about historians being dangerous? I think it supports my argument. For every one historian that acknowledges their own bias there are plenty that do not. Just as I would be able to provide examples of amateur historian AI content that even historians would not find problematic. The difference is that I would not use my example to say that AI videos are not dangerous.
Funny in a world of “history” channel where many of these professional historians are used when they can take a break from their regularly programmed conspiracy theories that anybody could with a straight face say they are any less dangerous. The amount of revisionism in history should have been a clue already but how much more defilement of our past can one ignore before calling the entire field out for what it is: a tool for propaganda