Thread by @vakibs

The way this history writing works is that each "historian" moves the pH of bullshit into more caustic territory. When the next fellow takes up the baton of writing history, they will produce even more outrageous stuff, justifying in a mealy-mouthed manner by citing predecessors.

https://twitter.com/priya_27_/status/1373365500986621956

The only way to counter this is by connecting the current crop of "historians" to the certified racist historians of the British Empire. They are one connected train of linkages. The field has never been decolonized. So they must be debunked as an institution, not as individuals.

So people using Eaton to counter Mrs. Trashkey are missing the whole point of this "history writing". They don't read John Kay or James Mill (dad of John S. Mill), the primogenitors of history writing for British Empire. They are all pukka racists, never debunked, but celebrated.

There is a specific methodology for decolonization in humanities that is accepted in academia. It is this intellectual language that must be learnt by people who want to argue against Trashkey (or any other small fry). They must connect the current crop to the hoary racist past.

Arguing on the basis of facts will not give you any mileage.

Arguing on the basis of hurt emotions is even dumber, will not get you anywhere.

The only way to argue is by exposing historically rooted relics of racism in current academia. Very few people are working like that.