Publication announcement! My historiography article on LGBTQ American history is out as a pre-print. I'm really proud of this one. brill.com/view/journals/…
This was a Plan-C research article given archive restrictions during COVID. I hated writing historiography papers in grad school. It's such hard work. But it was SUCH a treat to get to dig in to this literature. There's incredible work out there, and plenty of space to maneuver.
The field is thriving and far from saturated.
*American MILITARY history. Forgot a crucial adjective in the original.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dr. Lee asks a serious question, so I'll attempt a serious answer -- or at least some thoughts, as someone who's worked in an interdisciplinary environment for a long time. But these are mostly disjointed observations; I'd have to think more about making a coherent argument.
1. I think there are two types of berating - some of it good-natured ribbing by historians who understand and appreciate the work that political scientists do, and some of it is really vitriolic. I find the second sort to be really distasteful.
2a. Historians occupy a strange space in university structures that often separate the "humanities" from "social science." History, as a discipline, fits neatly in neither category. Are "we" more like literature and the arts or more like political science and sociology? Yes.
The dissonance between #ReadTheReport and #BUTstandards is stunning, but not surprising. It is much easier to reconcile and talk about the report if Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault in the ranks are evidence of BAD people and BAD decisions
And not fundamentally part of the same conversation about how women are treated within military organizations. If you don’t think women speaking up about how they EXPERIENCE something as simple as a haircut regulation,
Then why on earth would they trust you to listen to their EXPERIENCES of harassment and assault?
The prevailing narrative of #DADT repeal seems to be that it was no big deal, a nothing burger, all hat and no cattle. Evidence of the professionalism of the force and a broad commitment to inclusion. The evidence: None of the dire predictions came true...and yet.
This narrative, while tempting and self-congratulatory, oversimplifies the momentousness and significance of the repeal and, in many cases, erases the continued discrimination, intolerance, and harm suffered by LGBTQ service members even after the formal appeal.
It paves the way for “it’s no big deal. They’re just doing their job. Why do you have to flaunt it” responses when important “firsts” are achieved and barriers broken.
KM: Could you talk a bit about working on books with senior policymakers and in the Obama administration - what role did history play in your day-to-day work?