Professor, I’ve read your letters since early 2020. I’ve watched as your nightly scribes morphed from chronicling, to concern, to crisis. But always with a good dose of hope
I for one am glad you are sounding the alarm. I’ve seen the criticism from some that your “place” as an historian is solely to provide context, not opinion. In normal…
Professor, I’ve read your letters since early 2020. I’ve watched as your nightly scribes morphed from chronicling, to concern, to crisis. But always with a good dose of hope
I for one am glad you are sounding the alarm. I’ve seen the criticism from some that your “place” as an historian is solely to provide context, not opinion. In normal times that may hold some water, but these are not normal times.
Keep pushing forward with the fight. Our children and grandchildren deserve a future of possibilities. Your words of inspiration reach millions, and make a difference.
Yes, Herb Klinker, I share your opinion of Heather. Her historical context of current events has helped me face each tough day we have lived through in this Democracy-on-Trial moment. Many MAGA claim the whole system needs to crash and be broken, and therefore lying, disinformation, hoodwinking, conning, grifting, and bullying are acceptable behavior. I believe Heather champions our deep belief that although our history and current iteration of Democracy is not perfect, we favor treating it like the beautiful Japanese ceramic art of Kintsugi. It’s a technique that uses gold to highlight cracks in broken pottery. So rather than toss away the vessel, mend the cracks, paint them with gold to acknowledge the flaw, and continue to use and improve the vessel. Because it holds our hopes and dreams.
Yet history is little more than a curiosity unless it illuminates our present and offers clues to our future. Advanced memory and logic skills are much of our evolutionary advantage. That said, any projection of future events beyond Newtonian mechanics is likely to involve some degree of interpretation. Interpretation is legitimate so long as it does not claim to be more than a reasonable projection of relevant evidence.
Indeed. It is in the field of projections about our future and it’s interpreted multiplicities that cultural creatives and rational scientists always inhabit the same space.
Exactly. Seems to me that science explores "the thing in itself" best it can, and the arts, our sentient experience of it. The taste of a thing as well as it's chemistry. Both make up our human "world". Art that endures reveals some sort of truth about human experience even in the wildest fantasy. It would not make sense otherwise.
All fiction and non-fiction ever written are really about the time they were written in. Using them to illuminate some aspect of the present is really their best use. Pretending to do do otherwise is just a futile act.
Surely the era in which something of any major scope is written is reflected in it's text. It endures because it resonates with what we know and experience today, be it an enduring truth or an enduring identified or unidentified fallacy, which is to say a path that does not lead where we thought or hoped it would. Our humanity (for the good and bad of it) is reflected in our creations.
Just for the record I have never suggested that Heather as a historian shouldn't provide her opinions. I personally devour her opinions because they are almost always in total agreement with mine. What I have said is that she isn't a journalist because journalists do NOT provide opinions, they provide facts. They should call out the candidates ( and the good ones like NYT do) when they lie but they should not offer their opinion on whose positions are better. Historians do that... commentators do that... journalists should not.
What are you talking about? The NYT "overthrown by an autocrat"? The NYT is owned and published by the Sulzberger family as it has been since the late 1800s. Please enlighten me if you actually have some facts relating to this strange accusation which at least to my knowledge is just total nonsense.
Also, take just 10 seconds to think about how the NYT covered Biden's age/questions about his cognition, and what they are doing as Trump decompensates before our eyes, canceling interviews nearly daily, swaying on stage for 30 minutes, spouting ever more gibberish. It's shocking.
Final point... re Biden... Biden's cognitive decline was obvious to anyone who was looking. It demanded attention and got it. When it was the major story it had is effect which was to finally get Biden to step aside something he should have done himself long before this. Trump is clearly just as impaired maybe worse but he will never step aside. But it is constantly in the press due to his outrageous statements. I agree that when the press finally started taking the Biden issue serially after the debate they focused on him. Probably not the best look for the press but I don't think it showed any ridiculous anti Biden bias. And in the end he did step aside. I certainly wish trump would step aside too but that isn't going to happen..
Point two. The NYT headline nonsense is just nonsense. Read the times. I do every day. There is no evidence for this accusation that holds water. Sure some of their headlines are slightly lop sideds but they do it both ways. When I saw the post I was hoping to see actual references to NYT articles but instead I got a reference to a Substack which has IMHO a lot less credibility than the Nyt itself.
I read the Substack. It had a good point but it also is very limiting. It uses TWO headlines out of dozens every day to make a point in favor of the argument that the NYT is biased. That is JUST AS BIASED as the accusation. I can show dozens of headlines key alone stories that show little or no bias. Why aren't those mentioned? Because it defeats the thesis that the NYT is biased. And this is NOT a journalist but a Substack author who obviously has her own viewpoint. I get it, she doesn't like the NYT but that is no excuse to slant the post in that way UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO SLANT THE POST! Which is your right but it doesn't make what you say "the truth".
Point one. The NYT has been avidly supporting Harris (they wrote TWO very major editorials sipportting her) so I don't see where anyone who actually READS the paper as I do every single day could rationally say they are promoting trump. That is just not true.
Oh, come on. The NYT has been sane-washing a potential fascist dictator because Sulzberger has his panties in a bunch because Harris won’t give him the exclusive that he feels he’s entitled to. He’s in dereliction of duty based on his ego. Oh, and maybe a little bit of the bottom line comes into play as well.
You're smoking pretty good crack dude or you are just making shit up. They have actively supported Harris TWICE in two weeks. You are just spreading lies, much like the opposition in the presidential race. Please stop it. It is not a good look.
Journalists should know the facts of statements which is pretty easy these days to verify. So they should provide facts when disinformation is being said. Little old me can discern facts from disinformation but don't always have them at my finger tips but journalists should know and have the facts at their finger tips.
I like it when historians weigh into current politics. Why? Because they tend to bring the receipts, the proof, the facts. Particularly if they are allowed to lay out the case, without undue interference by the egocentric moderators on TV. Ari Melber comes to mind. And there are way too many following his lead.
Professor, I’ve read your letters since early 2020. I’ve watched as your nightly scribes morphed from chronicling, to concern, to crisis. But always with a good dose of hope
I for one am glad you are sounding the alarm. I’ve seen the criticism from some that your “place” as an historian is solely to provide context, not opinion. In normal times that may hold some water, but these are not normal times.
Keep pushing forward with the fight. Our children and grandchildren deserve a future of possibilities. Your words of inspiration reach millions, and make a difference.
Thank you.
With information comes power.
With power comes responsibility.
Heather Cox Richardson has been the best educator and I am so grateful for her guidance in such a time as this!
YES!!
Well said, Herb!
I agree!... although, I prefer to follow the perspective of, with responsibility comes power.
Yes, Herb Klinker, I share your opinion of Heather. Her historical context of current events has helped me face each tough day we have lived through in this Democracy-on-Trial moment. Many MAGA claim the whole system needs to crash and be broken, and therefore lying, disinformation, hoodwinking, conning, grifting, and bullying are acceptable behavior. I believe Heather champions our deep belief that although our history and current iteration of Democracy is not perfect, we favor treating it like the beautiful Japanese ceramic art of Kintsugi. It’s a technique that uses gold to highlight cracks in broken pottery. So rather than toss away the vessel, mend the cracks, paint them with gold to acknowledge the flaw, and continue to use and improve the vessel. Because it holds our hopes and dreams.
That is a beautiful analogy.
Perfect!
Beautifully said!
Yet history is little more than a curiosity unless it illuminates our present and offers clues to our future. Advanced memory and logic skills are much of our evolutionary advantage. That said, any projection of future events beyond Newtonian mechanics is likely to involve some degree of interpretation. Interpretation is legitimate so long as it does not claim to be more than a reasonable projection of relevant evidence.
Indeed. It is in the field of projections about our future and it’s interpreted multiplicities that cultural creatives and rational scientists always inhabit the same space.
Exactly. Seems to me that science explores "the thing in itself" best it can, and the arts, our sentient experience of it. The taste of a thing as well as it's chemistry. Both make up our human "world". Art that endures reveals some sort of truth about human experience even in the wildest fantasy. It would not make sense otherwise.
'" 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
I think there is truth IN that.
All fiction and non-fiction ever written are really about the time they were written in. Using them to illuminate some aspect of the present is really their best use. Pretending to do do otherwise is just a futile act.
Surely the era in which something of any major scope is written is reflected in it's text. It endures because it resonates with what we know and experience today, be it an enduring truth or an enduring identified or unidentified fallacy, which is to say a path that does not lead where we thought or hoped it would. Our humanity (for the good and bad of it) is reflected in our creations.
Just for the record I have never suggested that Heather as a historian shouldn't provide her opinions. I personally devour her opinions because they are almost always in total agreement with mine. What I have said is that she isn't a journalist because journalists do NOT provide opinions, they provide facts. They should call out the candidates ( and the good ones like NYT do) when they lie but they should not offer their opinion on whose positions are better. Historians do that... commentators do that... journalists should not.
Perhaps once upon a time NYT was a "good one". Since they were overthrown by an autocrat, not so much anymore. IMHO.
What are you talking about? The NYT "overthrown by an autocrat"? The NYT is owned and published by the Sulzberger family as it has been since the late 1800s. Please enlighten me if you actually have some facts relating to this strange accusation which at least to my knowledge is just total nonsense.
While I wouldn't say they have been overthrown by an autocrat, the NYT seems hellbent on unequal coverage in this election. And then when you think back to the 2016 election, and the Iraq war, it starts to seem like a pattern. Here's just one example: https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york-times-headlines?r=apy04&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Also, take just 10 seconds to think about how the NYT covered Biden's age/questions about his cognition, and what they are doing as Trump decompensates before our eyes, canceling interviews nearly daily, swaying on stage for 30 minutes, spouting ever more gibberish. It's shocking.
Final point... re Biden... Biden's cognitive decline was obvious to anyone who was looking. It demanded attention and got it. When it was the major story it had is effect which was to finally get Biden to step aside something he should have done himself long before this. Trump is clearly just as impaired maybe worse but he will never step aside. But it is constantly in the press due to his outrageous statements. I agree that when the press finally started taking the Biden issue serially after the debate they focused on him. Probably not the best look for the press but I don't think it showed any ridiculous anti Biden bias. And in the end he did step aside. I certainly wish trump would step aside too but that isn't going to happen..
Point two. The NYT headline nonsense is just nonsense. Read the times. I do every day. There is no evidence for this accusation that holds water. Sure some of their headlines are slightly lop sideds but they do it both ways. When I saw the post I was hoping to see actual references to NYT articles but instead I got a reference to a Substack which has IMHO a lot less credibility than the Nyt itself.
I read the Substack. It had a good point but it also is very limiting. It uses TWO headlines out of dozens every day to make a point in favor of the argument that the NYT is biased. That is JUST AS BIASED as the accusation. I can show dozens of headlines key alone stories that show little or no bias. Why aren't those mentioned? Because it defeats the thesis that the NYT is biased. And this is NOT a journalist but a Substack author who obviously has her own viewpoint. I get it, she doesn't like the NYT but that is no excuse to slant the post in that way UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO SLANT THE POST! Which is your right but it doesn't make what you say "the truth".
Point one. The NYT has been avidly supporting Harris (they wrote TWO very major editorials sipportting her) so I don't see where anyone who actually READS the paper as I do every single day could rationally say they are promoting trump. That is just not true.
I cancelled NYT years ago because of their bias and sameness of the two parties which is a big fat lie.
Oh, come on. The NYT has been sane-washing a potential fascist dictator because Sulzberger has his panties in a bunch because Harris won’t give him the exclusive that he feels he’s entitled to. He’s in dereliction of duty based on his ego. Oh, and maybe a little bit of the bottom line comes into play as well.
You're smoking pretty good crack dude or you are just making shit up. They have actively supported Harris TWICE in two weeks. You are just spreading lies, much like the opposition in the presidential race. Please stop it. It is not a good look.
I think "journalists" have become really loose in their reporting of facts and opinions... Or opinions as facts.
Journalists should know the facts of statements which is pretty easy these days to verify. So they should provide facts when disinformation is being said. Little old me can discern facts from disinformation but don't always have them at my finger tips but journalists should know and have the facts at their finger tips.
I like it when historians weigh into current politics. Why? Because they tend to bring the receipts, the proof, the facts. Particularly if they are allowed to lay out the case, without undue interference by the egocentric moderators on TV. Ari Melber comes to mind. And there are way too many following his lead.