Anyway, like I said, the author of the new book isn't anyone I'm interested in putting on blast. But it was disappointing to see this, and I think it's an avoidable pitfall of which those of us who want to engage with historical scholarship but aren't historians should be aware !
(It may also have been due to the author of the new academic book not being a historian—I think those of us who aren't historians sometimes overlook how much work it takes to map out these explanatory "chains" and how much credit is owed to the people who do it)
I don't actually think this was deliberate—the author of the new book is a scholar I respect a lot. I think it's a weird side effect of citation practices that, for largely good reasons, prioritize citing the original source over citing the secondary source that led you to it
The new book does cite this historian, but only as a commentator on ONE of the primary sources—as someone who noted one link in the chain, not as the person who assembled the chain itself. The implication is then that the author of the NEW book was the first to put the chain together
Read a new academic book that included an explanation of a certain social phenomenon. It's the exact explanation given by a 90s historian. It cited the same primary sources as the historian—but didn't cite the historian as the source of the explanation that ties them together. Frustrating!
Dreamed I was arguing with a guy who thought “structural racism” was a concept coined by the Huffington Post. I’d try to reference real sources and he’d be like “Yeah yeah, I know you like Arianna, but—” and I woke up so mad. Potential here for a powerful real-world troll tactic
The very second they give me the ability to click on a post and remind myself to look at it later—bookmarking it, DMing it to myself, literally any other method—you will not be able to separate me from this website with a crowbar
Hopped back on this app when I got the email about them adding DMs, but they do NOT seem to have added the ability to DM a post from the timeline—either to a mutual (as when sending one’s husband a cute animal picture) or to oneself (as when sending oneself an article to read later). USELESS to me
oh my god that makes so much more sense, sorry !!
Wait, does this site have DMs now ??