The History “Profession”

Something is badly amiss in it:

A big theme of MacLean’s book is that Buchanan inspired an effort to promote an anti-democratic putsch by the Koch Brothers. As Ilya Somin has explained, her conception of democracy doesn’t make any sense, at least if one assumes that she supports standard limits on democracy widely supported by progressives. But other historians have come to the rescue, arguing that the United States is a democracy when it follows the will of the people, as opposed to the will of organized reactionary interest groups. The U.S., for example, was democratic in the 1930s and 1960s, but not in the 1950s or 1980s. Democracy, in other words, means “progressive politics are winning out.” Lack of democracy means “progressive politics are not winning out.” Because in a true democracy, the will of the people wins, and the will of the people is naturally liberal-democratic-socialist. So Roe v. Wade is a “democratic” decision, even though it overturned the abortion laws of almost every state, because progressives approve of it. I kid you not.

The leftist narrative must triumph over truth or logic.

5 thoughts on “The History “Profession””

  1. ‘Progressives’ love democracy so long as the people vote the correct way. When the people vote the wrong way, they must be overruled by progressive politicians and judges, or, if it’s the EU, they must be forced to vote again and again until they do vote the correct way.

    Real democracy is anathema to them.

  2. 1. There are not many academic or other jobs for historians. 2. In a job market where any bachelor’s degree is no longer enough to start a middle class career, the percentage of undergraduates majoring in history has dropped precipitously. 3. Positive feedback into 1. 4. What jobs do exist are insecure and low paid.

    Ergo, most historians today are fools and think foolishly.

    1. For most of the last few decades, ‘history’ has just been a matter of spouting the Official Narrative. So it’s not surprising that so few people would want to get into it.

      Now the Internet has removed the gatekeepers who would only allow the ‘correct’ research to reach the public, we’re seeing a massive reevaluation of much of that Narrative. For example, open discussion of the widespread infiltration of the US government by Communists even before WWII, the true nature of Progressive heroes like Castro and Che Guevera, and the support they received from American Progressives when they were murdering, torturing and locking up vast numbers of their own people.

  3. It is great that you don’t need to go to school to be a historian. Anyone who is interested now has the tools to research to their hearts delight. The research can be as detailed or superficial as you want to get. There are just so many ways to learn about history from reading source material, books, and blogs to watching youtube videos from amateurs or college lectures. Then there are all the e-learning classes.

    This is great because there is so much competing information out there but it is also a challenge because an individual has to sift through it all and weigh the various sources against each other. This is what college used to be like. The only thing missing from the internet is a bit of mentorship.

    The institutional “historians” probably get a little butthurt that some rando nerds on the internet don’t look at them like priests standing between them and a god.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *