Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

Having now reviewed the Zoom of the #SHEAR2020 session, and with much of yesterday's Twitter commentary in mind, I can see several issues worth considering.

First, it's a good idea to review the session before making generalizations about it based on Twitter commentary alone. I had caught some of the feed yesterday, including the offensive language used by one participant at the end.

Second, I did see senior scholar pushback, delivered in the way one might expect at a civil professional meeting. But it's there. Twitter can be a far more blunt instrument.

That said, I understand why people were offended by various statements. So was I.

There were worthwhile observations made that have been slighted or ignored altogether, and the session needs to be viewed as a whole. But I found much to question or with which to disagree, and I was very unhappy about certain things.

Oh, there was minor stuff. Feller still doesn't understand that 44 men have been/are president, because Cleveland's counted twice. For someone holding forth on the sloppiness of professional peers ...

And the use of a certain term to describe Native Americans was simply inexcusable. Watson talked about Creeks and Redcoats. Feller transformed the former, despite Watson's attempt to caution him.

As for the discussion about Lyncoya, let's just say it was not as thoughtful or as informed as I would have liked, although there was pushback.

I've already made my point about Jackson as a military hero.

Part of the problem was panel construction. It would have been useful to present a more diverse set of perspectives and it would have been interesting to have someone talk about historians and the public who's not an academic historian.

There were many paths the discussion could have followed, but it became largely a seminar on Jackson. That was unfortunate. I thought it was going to be an exercise in the use and misuse of history, about remembering, distorting, forgetting, or just plain not understanding.

I don't think the words or perspective of a single scholar should render the entire discussion useless, although readers of the pre-circulated paper will notice a certain chippiness there as well. Folks, consider the source.

It's Feller being Feller. Everyone knew that.

I'm not going to excuse that. I never have. But you can tell that some people knew what they were getting beforehand. So why is anyone surprised?

I have no quarrel with the other responses concerning his comments.

I understand why people on Twitter were outraged because some of what was being said was outrageous.

But watch the whole thing. Read the pre-circulated paper, including the footnotes.

I think there are larger issues in play that should be discussed that are structural and institutional in nature. They deserve serious attention and thought.

I'm disappointed. We can do better, and we need to do better.