There are, of course, layers of bullshit here. For all the people who say they love history and that it has an Important Role to Play in a Democratic Society, they're terribly stingy when it comes to funding history and historians.
"Less than half of all history departments now employ a diplomatic historian, against 85% in 1975. "

How many departments are the same size they were in '75? How many are even half that size? Again, the root cause of this is budget cuts, not pinko liberal resistance to war stuff
"In 1970, 6% of American male and 5% of female students were history majors... now less than 2% and less than 1%, respectively."

Of course students aren't going to be tripping over themselves to sign up for a major where half the courses are taught by burnt-out adjuncts....
with absolutely abysmal job prospects in the field after graduation. "But you can get hired anywhere with a history degree!" Fuck you. Articles like this only further the perception that anyone that doesn't major in business is a weenie egghead with not practical skills.
"The revulsion from war history may derive not so much from students’ unwillingness to explore the violent past, but from academics’ reluctance to teach, or even allow their universities to host [milhist]."

Gee, Max, I wonder why the other teachers don't want to hang out w/ you.
"As for war, as elderly scholars retire from posts in which they have studied it, many are not replaced: the roles are redefined."

THEY'RE GIVEN TO ADJUNCTS MAKING LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE, YOU PONCEY SHIT.
"An eminent historian recently told me of a young man majoring in science at Harvard who wanted to take humanities on history, including the U.S. Civil War. He was offered only one course — which addressed the history of humans and their pets."

Fact check please.
“Can you imagine Chicago, or Berkeley, or Princeton having War Studies departments?”

Here's the Princeton history dept. page. Every sub-field is spotlighting a recently-published book explore violence, power, politics, and culture is some fashion. https://history.princeton.edu/fields 
Which is one of the big inside-baseball problems with this piece: because military history has expanded beyond introspections into The Mind of Napoleon or some such, it has largely fused with social & cultural history. This isn't news: it's been like this since the 70s at least.
"Harvard offers few history courses that principally address the great wars of modern times. Many faculties are prioritizing such subjects as culture, race and ethnicity."

Anchoring your essay on the field on Harvard and Princeton is a lot like this image of New York journalism.
In fairness, he does give a shout out to the University of Kansas History Department (formerly known as the Temple University History Department).
“...many in the academic community assume that military history is simply about powerful men — mainly white men —fighting each other and/or oppressing vulnerable groups.”

Probably because when people write about milhist in a way that isn't that, we're told it's not milhist.
"History sells prodigiously in the world’s bookstores. I have produced a dozen works about conflict, and my harshest critic would struggle to claim that these reflect an enthusiasm for it."
"Harvard offers few history courses that principally address the great wars of modern times. Many faculties are prioritizing such subjects as culture, race and ethnicity."

Explain the Iraq War to me without culture, race, and ethnicity. Try doing any war without at least two.
You can follow @XWnHIST.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.