Re: Pearls Before Swine: Uncle Is Not Good With Money

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, Scott Lurndal wrote:

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025, Chris Buckley wrote:

>
The whole reason I entered into this debate was not Trump, but the
claim that a survey of *historians* would possibly objectively rank
Trump.  I know historians. My father was a Republican historian and
for decades I would hear his stories of dwindling Republican presence
among historians. There weren't enough to get together for meals at
conferences by the time he retired.

>
This is likely true and pretty sad, and it's not a sign that historians
have changed so much that the Republican party has changed in that time.

>
The sad part is that his father identified as a "republican historian".
>
A real historian doesn't color their research with their own political
beliefs[*].

The fact that his father identified as republican and as a historian does not imply that he let it color his work. In fact, to me it would imply that he would hold his work to a higher standard, than any socialist democrat who uses history as a political tool.
This is the truth!

I wonder if his father's first name was William, but he identified
as a conservative writer, not an historian.
>
[*] Anyone who has studied history quickly becomes aware that historians
have unconcious biases, usually related to current culteral mores; some
historians writing in 1900 often cheered the concept of Manifest Destiny,
and the positive benefits (for the conquerers, not the conquered) of
colonization, for example.
>