Crap about history gets published. Historians freak out. Why do we care about Wodan weddings in England? It's not like someone is publishing misleading articles about science, right?

It matters. It does. Bad history is dangerous. Because bad history drives out good history. 1/

First of all this stuff never dies. Bad history drives out good history (1st Public History Law) Anyone who ever taught knows how quickly those kind of wild claims get cited. There are various reasons for it but visibility and simplification remain the main ones. 2/

When it gets out there and takes root it not only distorts the view of particular events but also influences how people perceive the causality of those events. Sadly, bad history ultimately influences more spheres of life than good history (2nd Public History Law). 3/

Which leads us to: If bad history can be used to enact harm it will be used to enact harm (3rd PH Law). And this, ultimately, is why we care. What might look like a weird Beowulf fanfic or harmless musings about how certain societies are better than others will be weaponised. 4/

We also care about other things. About accuracy. Sourcework. Responsibility. Presentation. Right citation practices. Accurate translations. But most of all as historians we are keenly aware that our work and how it is presented is important *here and now*. 5/

We are also aware that historiography and public history (good or bad) has more influence over current politics and issues like Brexit or the rise of populism than it seems at first. Distortions and lies in the presentation of historical causality shape the world we live in. 6/

So this is why we care. Because if you decide to be in this line of work, the historian's craft, then you also need to accept the responsibility for it. As Croce said, all history is contemporary history. 7/ https://twitter.com/Calthalas/status/1336658531366232067?s=20