Schisms in History
There are many great arguments in history, including over methodology and the very metaphysical essence of what history is or what it should be. But the deepest schism is that between "academic" historians and "journalistic" ones. It’s a divide so deep that we academic historians don’t even recognize journalistic historians as such. Yet they do what we so rarely can: They present history to the masses in interesting and evocative ways. Anything that creates excitement for the common man in the historic narrative should be received positively by the historical community. Yet these journalists are frequently plagued by poor methods, subpar resources, and a tendency to sensationalism beyond the support of facts. I, however, am convinced that history can be both correct and well-documented, yet remain accessible, readable and above all, fascinating to the common man.
History contains something for everyone. That’s the fact that got me into history to begin with, and it’s the truth that ought to be used to attract a wider audience of readers. Obviously if you’re interested by warfare, history has plenty for you. But it also speaks to romantics, to chefs, to businessmen. History, in its essence, is truly the story of people. As such, it covers every element of what is fascinating to mankind as a whole. And yet, nearly everyone I meet believes that history is the most boring of subjects, taught by ancient professors in dusty jackets in a dry monotone. I know a man who can tell me everyone who ever won a Daytona NASCAR race, but as he tells me, “That’s not history, that’s racin’.” We, as a profession, for our own survival, need to bridge this gap between our ivory towers and the common man. We need to gather the interest of our fellows, without sliding into sensationalism or corrupting our principles. I believe this can be done, and this is what I set out to do in my writing.
About the Author
