the cars franchise is a cinematic masterpiece

I got this job because Ive already spent 7 years in similar institutes training for this fulltime and 6 years before that acquiring the languages to be able to do those 7 years.

aka for comparison that's the same way a chef has years of training, specialisations in national or foreign cuisines, as well as many different types of cooking has then worked his way up in the business being mentored by other chefs from cook to sous chef to chef to chef of michelin restaurants while constantly checked by customers health inspection and food critics and helped by a team of cooks and staff and food suppliers and expensive equipment.

and just like tastes differ but food can be objectively good, knowledge (especially in the humanities) is actually a bunch of consensuses or even just arguments in a trenchcoat but the research has objectively higher truth value. because it's backed up by professional methods and resources and colleagues. that's how we create knowledge.

The ~5-9 years of university training that people go through to work in historical professions are maybe 80% about learning the required skills and only 20% about content (= learning sequences of events or "about" certain phenomena, i.e. what history is in school). If you "study history" for fun in your free time, you're likely reading lots of what other people have written to get to the "content", but may run into issues with stuff like:

1) reliably discerning what factors [historiographical era, school, position in debate] influenced the historian that wrote the piece and hence its usefulness as an account

2) reliably discerning who wrote it in the first place (amateur or pro?) and whether they were using good practices with their sources and methodology. This is important because there are a lot of bad faith and just otherwise poor quality historical interpretations that may be written in an authoritative tone that likely "makes sense" to you if you don't dig deeper into it!

3) if doing original research: evaluating whether something is a primary/secondary source, what circumstances it was created in, whether it's authentic, whether you're missing context, where to find context...

4) Just accessing sufficient information in general (institutional databases but also archives and libraries - for many topics you have to physically go to a specific place!) to be able to make a well-rounded argument

5) like op mentioned, accessing and processing information in multiple languages - you can't really properly study most topics without being able to read sources in the language of that area

6) making sure that what you're researching hasn't actually already been done before

Can we all please not gatekeep the love and study of history, regardless of your academic background. Obvious disclaimers should be noted, when it comes to the sharing and discussion of factual information and truth, especially regarding sources.

FYI, this is not be discounting those who have gone through rigorous training in the humanities and history fields (I myself am currently pursuing by History BA, hopefully a historical archiving MA), but I tell you the things I've studied and learned can easily be explained through Youtube and other (free) sources, such as Yale's Open Courses, edX, etc.

Of course nothing will beat an actual mentor/first-hand critique from a live professor, but, it's a start. At the very least, it also never hurts to personally reach out to educators - there's plenty of them on LinkedIn - if you'd like someone to take the time to read anything you've written. I guarantee you there are educators and intellectuals alike that will love to read someone's work, if it means encouraging intellectualism and the study of history.

Also shout-out to one of my favorite educators, Dr. Adam Walker, a professor from Harvard, who's actually gotten me interested in close readings (literature though, not poetry, lol) and the study of Rhetoric.

There's also the added fact that while someone may have the credentials to be considered a "Historian", they can still use that background for less than savory influences, or have even knowledge to cherry-pick information to support whatever narrative they want to promote/claim.

For this reason we have the term popular historian. Someone who's not directly involved in academia but practices history nonetheless. Who does not have the exact resources and quality control as academic historians but practices it nonetheless. and can contribute OFTEN and WELL.

as to resources, yes, academic resources are becoming more and more accessible for free/outside of universities, which is DOPE, and yes, academics are more and moreso able and willing to reach out to wider publics. but, as fitzrove rightfully pointed out, those historians are in the business of creating knowledge, and have the experience to do so, which we can then consume. the creation of knowledge (and thus history) is largely academic and professional because it has to go through a rigorous process of peer review/criticism/assessment. yes, this process is largely gatekept within academia, but that's because such processes cost money, labour, etc. Essentialy, history is a team sport and as a historian you need a team to play with, or there's no game (= creating history). So even if you access university resources and acquire the skills of a historian, then you need to contribute to that process to be a historian. you're not refuting my point here.

and yes, lots and lots of those historians are bad, or produce bad work! just like every other professional field. but until such a person is fired or removed from their position they are not less of a historian. just a bad one. i don't appreciate the true scotsmanning of what is essentially a profession, no more and no less.

white women who have lizzo blocked on twitter: I'm SOBBINHG. the METAPHORS. did she know she would define a generation with this? 😭😭😭

gayboys who own every switch pokemon game: agsshdjdkdakh no okay but why is this better than everything on the radio for the past ten years 😭 THIS ICONNNNN. EVERYBODY SHUT UP I'M IN MY FLUSHING ERA 📢📢

asian giant hornet in a japanese honeybee nest:

and then this kid, this one kid who is always very eager to answer questions and is always kind to his classmates, raised his hand looking a little bothered. now for context, i emphasize thinking for yourself in my classroom, even if that means disagreeing with something i say and he has echoed some stuff that his parents clearly have told him before. he's not a bad kid or an asshole, he's just an 18 year old with conservative parents who otherwise knows nothing about politics. but he just looks so bothered after i explain this about dirty arguing techniques. big frown on his face. looking unsure. when i nod at him to speak, he says, in a very quiet voice, "didn't -- didn't charlie kirk used to do that?"

and i was like. well yes. yes he was famous for stuff like this.

and then the kid looked down and was just like, "oh. i thought he was just really good at debating. i never watched his videos though, only clips. why would he do that?"