After a couple of days or reading and listening to the various reactions to this interview, I now have a larger question:
How does one become an Historian? What qualifies an individual as an Historian? There is no significant historical event that does not have much written about it from a variety of viewpoints threaded through with biase…
After a couple of days or reading and listening to the various reactions to this interview, I now have a larger question:
How does one become an Historian? What qualifies an individual as an Historian? There is no significant historical event that does not have much written about it from a variety of viewpoints threaded through with biases, we are human after all (until we all become cyborgs thanks to AI).
My question is about how societies and institutions confer the "Historian" title to a person, unrelated to the topic of this article. I am curious to hear people's take on this.
Thank you. So this causes me to ask another question, which is: How do you define a pseudo-historian if this person does profit off of their writing about history?
After a couple of days or reading and listening to the various reactions to this interview, I now have a larger question:
How does one become an Historian? What qualifies an individual as an Historian? There is no significant historical event that does not have much written about it from a variety of viewpoints threaded through with biases, we are human after all (until we all become cyborgs thanks to AI).
My question is about how societies and institutions confer the "Historian" title to a person, unrelated to the topic of this article. I am curious to hear people's take on this.
It’s not bestowed upon a person. If I talk or write about history I’m a casual historian. If I get paid for it I’m a historian.
Thank you. So this causes me to ask another question, which is: How do you define a pseudo-historian if this person does profit off of their writing about history?