One thing I've come to think of as a hallmark of mediocre history writing:
1) Narrow factual statements "e.g. this speech was spoken on this date" get citations.
2) Broad statements of the sort "this generation believed in [X]" have no citation.
1) Narrow factual statements "e.g. this speech was spoken on this date" get citations.
2) Broad statements of the sort "this generation believed in [X]" have no citation.
I think what bugs me about (2) is almost invariably what it ends up being is a stereotype. Because if it just seems right to your gut, it's going to be founded in whatever you think you've heard, and thus probably a melange of whatever media you've been exposed to.
Put another way: If you don't know the source, the source may be trash. Like, if God could tell you WHY you think e.g. 1950s women were like X, you might be shocked at how idiotic your data source is - TV shows, Internet posts, etc.
Of course, it's necessary to be able to generalize somewhat about history (or any field!) just to talk about it. But that doesn't get you off the hook. And, if there *isn't* a good source, be honest about how much you know.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
