Read on Twitter
Agreed. But I'm not inclined to argue with it bc the #1776Commission is not/ does not intend to be in the same realm of information and knowledge as research historians. Two positive things historians can do: 1/ https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1351517393311457280
First, we can help journalists in particular to understand how historians work fr research, evidence and argument to develop new knowledge of the past. Revision works in history as in science to advance our understanding-- eg resulting histories of #VastEarlyAmerica 2/
And second we can understand what this report represents. reading @JeffSharlet @LaurenRKerby fr ex demonstrates that this report is part of long-standing curricula that stand wholly apart fr research history. Making a better evidenced argument will not speak to these views. 3/
I'm utterly convinced that sharing historical process w the public is massively important. More ppl need to understand why history isn't obvious, and why we know and understand new things about the past. They will invest in that process and participate. 4/
I admire many terrific threads responding to journalists like @sewellchan asking to know how & why this report is wrong in its assertions. Goodness knows I'm committed to understanding #VastEarlyAmerica as foundational. I just want to be clear abt the work we're doing. 5//
