Many others are already parsing the report of the 1776 Commission. This much here: It's a propagandist hack job.
What interested me were the people involved with it.
(They're pretty much who you would expect them to be.)
What interested me were the people involved with it.
(They're pretty much who you would expect them to be.)
Carol M. Swain, Vice Chair. Ph.D. in Political Science. Not a historian.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._…
The three above-the-line people leading the commission.
Not one who is primarily a historian.
Considering the commission states "the facts of our founding are not partisan. They are a matter of history" it feels not out of bounds to ask:
Why not let a historian chair it?
Not one who is primarily a historian.
Considering the commission states "the facts of our founding are not partisan. They are a matter of history" it feels not out of bounds to ask:
Why not let a historian chair it?
Even if none of these people were truly controversial choices (they are):
How are they qualified to define a nation's history?
How are they qualified to define a nation's history?
A few more names:
Phil Bryant. MA in Political Science. Former Mississippi Governor.
Came out in favor of replacing Mississippi's former flag featuring the Confederate flag. After leaving the governorship.
During his governorship, however: mississippitoday.org/2018/06/18/gov…
Phil Bryant. MA in Political Science. Former Mississippi Governor.
Came out in favor of replacing Mississippi's former flag featuring the Confederate flag. After leaving the governorship.
During his governorship, however: mississippitoday.org/2018/06/18/gov…
Jerry Davis, longtime College of the Ozarks president with a penchant for "patriotic education." (cnn.com/2017/10/26/hea…)
Some more information on the College of the Ozarks:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_o…
Some more information on the College of the Ozarks:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_o…
Michael Farris. JD. Chancellor of Patrick Henry College, which teaches "a profound appreciation for our country and the liberty it provides in their history classes, Constitutional law classes, and government courses."
phc.edu/news/1776commi…
phc.edu/news/1776commi…
John Gibbs. Master of Public Administration. Who "has a history of making inflammatory remarks and spreading false conspiracy theories on his Twitter feed."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibb…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibb…
Victor Davis Hanson. Ph.D. in classics. That qualifies him, I suppose, as the first historian on the list. Though not a historian of the U.S. by any stretch of the imagination.
Author of "The Case for Trump."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Da…
Author of "The Case for Trump."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Da…
Charles Kesler. Political scientist whom @politico called "the intellectual avatar of Trumpism."
politico.com/interactives/2…
politico.com/interactives/2…
Thomas Lindsay. Political Scientist.
Again: There are BAFFLINGLY few historians on this list, considering it's the members of a commission about history.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Li…
Again: There are BAFFLINGLY few historians on this list, considering it's the members of a commission about history.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Li…
Ned Ryun. BA in English and History. CEO of a conservative 501(3)(c). History podcaster.
This is as relevant amd historiany as it gets here.
Still not someone you'd trust over any of a few thousand of my colleagues.
This is as relevant amd historiany as it gets here.
Still not someone you'd trust over any of a few thousand of my colleagues.
So here we are. The whole 1776 Commission, tasked with supposedly a hugely important historical task is amazingly devoid of… historians.
I hadn't come across one of them in any academic debates, or books I'd read or even heard of, or known of them existing as historians.
I hadn't come across one of them in any academic debates, or books I'd read or even heard of, or known of them existing as historians.
Sure, I don't read everything. And gatekeeping an academic discipline is always fraught: in any era, some of the most creative work comes from non-traditional researchers, so one shouldn't dismiss out of hand.
But there are literally NO academic historians working on the US—any era—on the list.
We get lawyers, political scientists, and a plethora of other professions, but NO historians on the list of people who supposedly put together this oh so important document on US history.
We get lawyers, political scientists, and a plethora of other professions, but NO historians on the list of people who supposedly put together this oh so important document on US history.
Perhaps some of the researchers or people credited lower on the page have qualifications.
But that's beside the point: they wouldn't be in a position of power to change the direction of the document.
But that's beside the point: they wouldn't be in a position of power to change the direction of the document.
Despite its claims, this is neither "historic" nor "scholarly."
It's a spectacularly tendentious fantasy story gesturing vaguely in the direction of actual American history.
Not even its high gloss design and title font copied from McCullough's "1776" book can change that.
It's a spectacularly tendentious fantasy story gesturing vaguely in the direction of actual American history.
Not even its high gloss design and title font copied from McCullough's "1776" book can change that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
