Tag Archives: blogging

Becoming a Regular Contributor to the “Muster” Blog

A couple weeks ago the Journal of the Civil War Era announced that they had overhauled the design of their blog, Muster. A couple days after that I received an email stating that the blog was looking for writers to contribute essays on a regular basis, and that I was invited to join the team. So…I’m very pleased to announce that I will now be a regular contributor to Muster. I will be writing roughly five or six essays a year and offering a particular focus on interpreting the Civil War era within a public history setting, although that will not be my only focus. I’ve written previously for Muster before becoming a regular contributor, with the most recent essay focusing on the Frank Blair statue at Forest Park in downtown St. Louis.

The team of regular correspondents now writing for Muster is truly outstanding, and I am greatly honored to have been asked to be a part of this exciting initiative. My first essay as a regular correspondent should be up next week – we’ll see what happens from here!




A Quick Note on a Few Site Updates

To kick off the new year I’ve done a little bit of maintenance work on the website that I’d like to share with readers.

My Resources page has been updated to include some of my better writings from 2015. The collection spans back to my first days blogging here at Exploring the Past back in 2013. It’s a good way to keep track of writings that would otherwise be hard to find though the search function on the website.

I have also created a Google Doc that contains all of my open access publications from other websites and papers I’ve presented at conferences. You can view that document here. I will also leave a permanent link to the document on my Curriculum Vitae.

Please take a look at these writing and enjoy (hopefully).


A Brief Reminder About My Disclaimer and Comment Policy

On the Disclaimer page of this website I state that I reserve the right to moderate comments at my discretion. I operate this website as a private citizen and provide a comment section in the hope that others will join in fruitful conversation with me, but this site is not an unrestricted free-speech zone. If you say something insulting towards me or other people who leave comments, use vulgarities, or talk/rant about things that are completely off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I will delete that comment. This is my platform, and I am under no obligation to make it your platform.

This website has always been a place for discussing 19th century history, especially Civil War-related topics, but events related to the recent actions of institutions around the country to take down or alter Confederate iconography have aroused my interest as of late. I am not the only one discussing this topic. Emotions have been heated on all sides of the discussion, and I have attempted to look at issues of history and memory that this iconography sparks from the perspective of an educator and historian. I publicly supported the taking down of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House grounds back in June but have made no other declarations one way or the other regarding any other Confederate iconography. I have instead opted to talk about why these symbols are so charged, why they are now coming down even though this debate reaches back at least a hundred years in some cases, and what we can do to educate people about Civil War history moving forward. I have enjoyed conversing with readers here and elsewhere about these topics.

Mr. George Purvis, however, has made it his intention to comment on almost every Civil War-related essay I’ve penned over the past few months with false claims about Civil War history that have nothing to do with the discussions I’m trying to have and personal insults towards myself and others. See herehere, here, here, and here for examples. This behavior towards Civil War bloggers has happened elsewhere too. I have tried to be as respectful as possible towards Mr. Purvis and engage in discussion with him by providing links to reputable resources and by providing my understanding of history to the best of my ability using primary and secondary source documents. However, there have been a number of recent comments of his that I’ve opted to delete because it’s become apparent that it’s pointless to continue a prolonged debate with someone who will mischaracterize arguments, never listen to what you have to say with an honest ear, and will never be satisfied with what you have to say unless you adopt their position 100%.

Mr. Purvis, as is his right, has now opted to write about me on his blog. Back in October he maintained that I held “bigoted and biased views” because I demanded that he provide credible documentation proving the existence of tens of thousands of blacks who fought for the Confederacy. I’m still waiting for that proof. Now he is claiming that I am “protecting” other Civil War bloggers because I have deleted insulting comments of his that he attempted to direct towards them in the comments section of this blog. “I had some respect for Sacco as a decent fellow, I guess I judged him to [sic] quick,” he says.

He wouldn’t know, of course, that I’ve also deleted out of line comments directed towards him, but I suppose it’s easy to be portrayed as a singular victim of my political correctness or whatever.

He claims that he has consistently offered comments in a “factual civil manner, no insults” on this website and says that he will copy his comments towards me on his own website. Very well. But Mr. Purvis has not copied all of his comments in a faithful manner, and he has conveniently left out a number of disparaging comments, including this one directed towards friend and fellow blogger Al Mackey in response to the New Orleans City Council electing to take down four Confederate monuments within the city limits:

George Purvis Idiocy

Ah, yes. The NOLA Confederate Monuments are coming down thanks to “Black Supremacist [sic].”

Mr. Purvis and others are free to write whatever they want about me on their personal blogs and moderate their comment section as they deem fit. That is their right. While I think it’s unfortunate that lies and false claims about me are spread on the internet and now searchable on Google, there’s not much I can do about it. It’s a small price to pay for expressing my views publicly. But the same standards apply to my website, and I will not allow inappropriate comments to go through or waste time debating every ridiculous claim that gets thrown my way. It’s not avoiding debate so much as valuing my time and focusing on things I think are important and worth discussing. Mr. Purvis and anyone else is welcome to continue commenting in the future, but it’s worth repeating that commenting at Exploring the Past comes with boundaries that I set at my discretion.

I wish everyone a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, including Mr. Purvis.


Addendum, 12/25/15: The day after this post went live, Mr. Purvis left a comment suggesting that it was none of my business to have an opinion about Confederate iconography/Civil War history and accused me of being an “agitator” full of “racism, bigotry and hate and ignorance.” (I believe he’s accusing me of demonstrating these behaviors towards white people or white Southerners, but his incoherence is hard to understand sometimes. Given that I live in a state with some Southern leanings and have numerous friends and family in the South, the charges are patently absurd). This comment is the tipping point for me, and he is now banned from commenting any further on this website. It’s unfortunate that I have to take this measure, but I feel I have no other options at this point lest I subject myself to more abuse. In trying to argue his point of view here and elsewhere, Mr. Purvis has consistently been his own worst enemy.

Exploring the Past Turns Two!

Photo Credit: Baha'i Blog: http://bahaiblog.net/site/

Photo Credit: Baha’i Blog: http://bahaiblog.net/site/

Today marks two years of blogging at Exploring the Past. I’ve long been interested in blogs and toyed with the idea of blogging about history for at least a couple years before starting in 2013. A requirement to start blogging for a digital history graduate class, however, ultimately pushed me to establish my own website. A desire to publicly share my thoughts on the historian’s craft, my interest in nineteenth-century history, and bits of my master’s thesis research on the Grand Army of the Republic also influenced my decision to start blogging. I didn’t know at that time if I would maintain a long-term commitment to public writing or if anyone would take much interest in what I had to say.

Two years later, things have gone better than I could have ever imagined. I’ve written about 250 posts in that time, ranging from short anecdotes to 1,500-word essays. I’ve had nearly 40,000 visitors to the site, many of which have left kind, generous comments of support and thoughts that have challenged my thinking. Equally important, blogging has exposed me to a network of scholars, allies, and friends within the historical enterprise that have helped enable my growth as a professional historian. Given the speed and simplicity of digital communication with colleagues around the world today, it’s hard to imagine a time when members of professional organizations like the American Historical Association and the National Council on Public History only communicated through letters, occasional telephone calls, and annual conferences. It’s great having social media tools like Twitter and WordPress today to help facilitate dialogue about historical content and methods with others online, and I happily embrace the opportunity to contribute my part to those conversations.

From time to time I get questions about how and why I blog as much as I do. My response is that writing has become an important part of my life over the past two years, something I’ve dedicated more and more time to for various reasons. The enjoyment I receive from the experience is sublime, and the challenge of becoming a graceful, competent, and persuasive writer is one I can only accomplish through the sometimes arduous process of sitting in a chair and typing away at the computer. There’s no shortcut or magic pill to becoming a better writer; you must simply write. Doing so for a public audience (as opposed to writing for a teacher or keeping a diary) improves my craft because it puts my work under public scrutiny and challenges me to write with clarity and precision. At the end of the day, blogging makes me a better writer and thinker.

2014 was a good year for me personally and professionally. I graduated from IUPUI with a master’s degree in history and found full-time employment with the National Park Service. I made trips to both sides of the country, including one to Monterey, California, for the 2014 NCPH conference and one to Pennsylvania/Maryland/Virginia for the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College’s summer conference. I moved back to my native St. Louis in June and have been able to spend a lot of time with friends and family in the area since then. In addition to blogging at Exploring the Past, my publications in 2014 included my first journal article, my first magazine article, three professional book reviews, and several online essays for History@Work and Sport in American History, among other websites.

All that said, there was also terrible personal loss and sorrow that overshadowed these accomplishments, so I am ready to move on to 2015.

It’s been hard for me to define concrete goals for 2015. Obviously I want to keep growing as a person and a professional, but the path towards growth remains a bit of a mystery to me at this point. Writing will continue to be an integral part of my life, but from there, who knows? Hopefully readers will stick around to see what happens next. I thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for their readership, comments, and support, which all mean so much to me.


Ideas for Keeping the Tent Big

A brief addendum to my post yesterday on crowdsourcing and DHThis:

  • Ernesto Priego of City University London left a thoughtful comment on this blog that provoked new questions about DHThis and the nature of inclusiveness in dh. He correctly clarified that the “yes/no” binary that I described is actually an “up/down” vote and that the content of an essay, article, video, etc. is not submitted to DHThis. Rather, it is the link to that content that is submitted by users. He also suggested that this formula complicates the voting system because “it’s not only the content being judged, but the participation via submission.” What motivates these people to submit links for voting to the site? Is it to endorse that content, or is like a Retweet on Twitter that doesn’t necessarily function as an endorsement? What if someone votes down a fellow colleague’s work?
  • Ernesto also pointed out that I had made no mention of DHNow, another website that functions as a repository for showcasing notable work in the dh community. I was vaguely aware of DHNow’s existence prior to writing my post, and I knew little about the site. Furthermore, much of the discussion I had observed on Twitter and blogs had revolved around concerns brought up by the Journal of Digital Humanities, so it never occurred to me that making no mention of the site or its similarities to DHThis was a mistake on my part.
  • Jesse Stommel of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and I exchanged a few tweets about ideas for DHThis to consider for their voting system. We agreed that the yes/no/up/down voting system put less emphasis on discussion of content. Jesse suggested that a system for tagging similar posts be implemented, to which I responded that such a system could open the possibility for a “similar” or “recommended” reading section to be added under each post on the site. If a popular post is featured on the front page, clicking on it would lead to similar content that has less votes, but may be worthy of reading. Such a system wouldn’t completely remove the “popularity contest” aspect, but I think it would allow for less popular scholarship to be considered for featured status on the site. Adeline Koh of Stockton College (and one of the creators of DHThis) agreed that such a system may enhance the “discoverability” of content on the site.
  • Jesse and I agreed that keeping the yes/up vote option and removing the no/down vote option should be considered by the organizers of DHThis.

I enjoyed the exchanges that took place yesterday and I thank Ernesto, Jesse, and Adeline for engaging in discussion with me when they really didn’t have to. I hope that readers didn’t perceive my last post as full of negativity. It is an exciting time to be involved with the Digital Humanities, as many traditional notions for creating, reviewing, and disseminating humanities scholarship are being challenged by the promises and perils of digital technology. The fact that three remarkably talented scholars and a Hoosier graduate student spread over two continents can exchange so many questions and arguments in a day’s time reinforces the sheer astonishment I have about the changing nature of communication in the digital age. Such an exchange would have never happened five or ten years ago, and I think that’s a cause for celebration, even if many of us still have a limited understanding as to what the “digital humanities” we so frequently talk about actually is.


Promises and Perils of Blogging

As I continue to reflect on the discussions that took place during the Digital Sandbox about student uses of social media, I have been pleasantly surprised by the amount of positive feedback I’ve received from the Twitterverse and those who attended my panel in person.

For my part of the panel, I chose to focus on blogging as form of sharing humanities scholarship with the broader public. At one point in my life not too long ago I was fairly skeptical of blogs and viewed them as platforms for promoting frivolous top ten lists, gossip, and “scoops” that were generally uninteresting to me. I was never encouraged to utilize blogging (or the internet generally) as a means for learning about history during undergrad. Indeed, I viewed social media and blogging as a place for leisurely fun, not scholarly discussion, and I never thought about using social media and/or blogging as a way to assert ownership in my humanities scholarship and my education.

My views began to change when I started working for the National Park Service at the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site in 2010. Within the first few days of working there, my friend and fellow ranger Bob Pollock of Yesterday…and Today told me about a number of notable Civil War blogs that were worth reading, and nothing’s ever been the same since. While I continue to read and rely on print books for a large amount of my scholarly endeavors, I began to find myself at that point making more time to get online to read about the Civil War. I began to spend less time on sites like YouTube and NHL.com and almost completely gave up watching television. Once I started graduate school last year, the impulse to start blogging on my own became more acute, and after eight months I have no intentions of stopping. I have been amazed by the ever-growing network of connections I have developed through blogging in such a short time.

I think that blogging sometimes gets the same sorts of criticisms Wikipedia gets. Wikipedia, we are often told by history teachers, is an unreliable source that cannot be trusted, and it should never show up as a citation on a term paper. Sure, it acts as a great “starting point,” but the crowdsourcing platform that Wikipedia has embraced has led to articles that are sometimes biased, inaccurate, poorly interpreted, or a combination of all three. There is certainly a grain of truth to all of this, and I wouldn’t want my students citing Wikipedia on their assignments either. However, many of those same academics who routinely criticize Wikipedia for its shortcomings have never attempted to edit a Wikipedia page to make it more to their liking, nor have they encouraged their students to use their newly-gained skills to fix mistakes on the site. Likewise, I have seen critics of blogs question the medium as a way of sharing information and “deepening” our understanding of the past and–in the case of Gary Gallagher in a June 2012 editorial in the Civil War Times–criticize history bloggers for making an “unworthy topic appear to be serious.” Yet those same critics often don’t utilize blogging as way to tackle what they consider to be “serious” topics.

So, in sum, I’m a big fan of blogging. However, my experiences at the Digital Sandbox on Thursday, August 15 and the IUPUI Public History Workshop the following day have also reminded me that there are shortcomings to blogging that have yet to be addressed in the academic community.

Dr. Ray Haberski of Marian University and the Society of United States Intellectual History gave the keynote speech for the Digital Sandbox, and his insights into the USIH’s experiences in blogging were fascinating. Originally started as a series of discussion threads on H-Net in 2005, the USIH eventually moved to the blogging format in 2007 and gained rapid popularity in the academic community. A national intellectual society was literally formed through the blog, and the society has been hosting a national conference on intellectual history since 2008. Dr. Haberski even mentioned that comments left on his blog posts helped to better arrange and formulate arguments in his scholarly books.

However, Haberski pointed out to us that blogging doesn’t get one a job in academia, nor does it replace the experience of getting one’s hands dirty with research material at a library or archives. In fact, several of the original founders of the USIH are now out of academia completely. Furthermore, the question of audience must play a role in deciding to blog. Has the USIH had great success because of its expanding popularity amongst those in the general public, or is it because of its popularity with an academic audience? Maybe both? Does blogging encourage dialogue between scholars and the general public, or are old divisions between scholars and the public being perpetuated in an online format? What can scholars do to reach the public? Are there ways to improve scholarly content delivery or the blogging platform in general? I don’t think anyone has an idea right now.

On Friday, many of these same concerns were addressed through a speech given by Dr. Andrew Hurley of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Hurley wrote a very fine book about historic preservation, public history, and civic engagement that I will address in a future post, and his work in St. Louis is remarkable. However, Dr. Hurley came to us with a warning: be careful with digital technology, and keep your audience in mind when creating digital content.

Hurley pointed out that public history has moved beyond text and image websites and into interactive realms that could redefine how we look at the past. He also pointed out that the term “Digital Divide” has changed in meaning over the past twenty years in the United States. In the 1990s, the Digital Divide referred to the haves and have-nots: those who had access to the internet and those who did not. Today, almost everyone has access to the internet, but how they use the internet constitutes the new and critical Digital Divide. Higher income people are more likely to have desktop computers and use the internet for website building, blogging, and the accumulation of “knowledge capital.” Lower income people, however, are more likely to access the internet through mobile phones and use the internet for passive entertainment, games, image sharing, and other related activities. When Hurley’s group attempted to run a blog and Facebook page to promote its restoration efforts in North St. Louis, the sites ultimately failed, with few people in the area commenting on the blog or accessing the internet as a way to promote restoration efforts in St. Louis.

Where do we go from here? Hurley stressed to us the importance of public historians encouraging their audiences to use the internet as a form of “content-based knowledge creation” and critical thinking. I am convinced that this is the next great challenge in closing the “Digital Divide,” but I am lacking answers for how best to approach this problem. It’s an exciting time in the social media/blogging/digital realm of humanities scholarship right now, but I hope that we as a community continue to make time for critical reflection on how to best use digital technology to inspire everyone to not only use the internet as a source of personal empowerment, but to become more empathetic humans in general. That’s the goal of the humanities, right?


Putting Yourself Out There: Tips and Tricks

At the Digital Sandbox this past Thursday, I moderated a panel on how students could use social media and blogging to promote their humanities scholarship online. I did a personal experiment with the workshop and went completely paperless, taking all of my notes via live tweeting. The following is a collection of points that were made by panelists and a list of resources I utilized as I put together this panel.

Social Media and Blogging

Besides my own presentation, I was fortunate to have two panelists who contributed much to the panel. Kalani Craig is a recent graduate of Indiana University who specializes in Medieval history and pedagogy and is now teaching at IU. Her website is here. Andrew McGregor is a PhD candidate at Purdue University who specializes in sports history. His website is here.

  • Kalani focused much of her discussion on establishing a social media presence that focuses on promoting clear professional goals. One important prerequisite for establishing this presence is finding where your audience is located. Writing up a nice essay and then posting it to MySpace makes no sense, since it is highly unlikely that any sort of audience will be found there. At this point, Twitter is an ideal space in which to create a social media presence because many students, academics, and professional have embraced it as a platform for sharing information.
  • Kalani equated social media usage to picking out clothes in the morning or finding a group of people to sit with at a table. What “twitter clothes” are you going to wear? Who do you want to sit at your social media table? Twitter is great because scholarly discussions are taking place through the use of hashtags in tweets. When announcements are made in the field of history, they are often tweeted to #twitterstorians, where historians from all over the world go to keep up on the latest happenings and engage in discussion. By using hashtags in tweets, students can share content to a wide audience. Students should also retweet good tweets from other Twitter users.
  • If a student wants to build a network of scholarly connections on Twitter, they should actively look for and follow other people who share scholarly content. Sometimes these people will follow you back. Furthermore, students should use Twitter for (mostly) professional tweets if they seek to connect with others in their field. “Professional tweets” can include links to interesting articles and blog posts, occasional commentary on those links, and tweets that outline your long term professional goals, including upcoming conferences, talks, and events that you want to attend. If most of your tweets are highly personal, the people who sit at your social media table may not include professionals in your field (or anyone at all). That said, occasional light banter between friends and professionals and personal tweets are okay. In fact, tweets of this nature are actually encouraged because they show that you are not a robot. The digital humanities community in particular is a welcoming place in which to work AND play. I (Nick, not Kalani) would recommend that students split their professional and personal tweets around the 70-30 or 80-20 range.
  • Andrew showed us the potential of Academia.edu as a way to promote scholarly work. Many people do Google searches, for example, of fellow professionals they may be meeting for the first time. The Google algorithms machine frequently lists the Academia.edu profiles of its users on the first page of a search. Academia.edu allows for its users to post their scholarly work online and make it downloadable in PDF format. The keynote speaker for the Digital Sandbox–Dr. Ray Haberski–has an academia.edu profile that serves as an excellent model for what this sort of profile can look like.
  • Andrew also pointed out that Facebook can be a means for sharing academic content as well. Many National Park Service sites, historic homes, and museums have Facebook profiles that are used to make announcements, provide information on their sites, and hold discussions about recent and upcoming events. Andrew also talked about a discussion group about sports history called “Sports Studies Reading Team” that frequently holds “book club” type discussions about recent scholarship in sports history. People from all over the world participate in these discussions and share information with each other through this forum. I had never thought of using Facebook this way and think it’s a great idea.
  • I focused on blogging as a way to promote one’s scholarship online and mentioned several reasons for blogging humanities content. One reason that students should consider blogging is that blogging is becoming more common in the classroom. I referenced American University history professor Trevor Owens’ essay on his experiences with his students blogging and mentioned that blogging involves writing for a public audience, which is different than writing an essay that only your teacher will see.
  • While writing my master’s thesis and getting that bound and published next year is my central academic goal at this point, I have had a desire to share my research with the broader public, especially research that will most likely not get into the final published product. Blogging provides me a platform in which to share some of that information and provide insights into how my research is going. In my opinion, blogging allows me to ask open-ended questions and write out some of my ideas about the ways in which I think about history and my thesis topic. In this regard, I believe that blogging has allowed me to advance the writing process of my thesis in an extremely positive manner. I occasionally get comments as well, which is awesome. Readers that want to see what I’ve been blogging in regards to my research can click on the “Grand Army of the Republic” link in the Categories section to the right.
  • I also attempted to complicate or “problematize” blogging. Time was running short, so I didn’t have much time to address this. I did, however, reference a point made by historian Keith Harris, previously of the blog Cosmic America. A few years ago, Keith wrote a post on Grover Cleveland and Confederate Battle Flags that gained a lot of traction. For a while, if a person typed ‘Grover Cleveland’ into Google, Keith’s post would have popped up on the first page. Keith readily admitted, however, that he is no Cleveland scholar, and his knowledge of Cleveland’s life and time as President is limited. However, Google made Keith an “authority” by putting his post on the first page. Is this good? How much “authority” do bloggers wield in humanities scholarship? Ultimately, I think this anecdote reminds us that we need to be careful with online sources when doing research. Furthermore, teachers need to educate their students on how to analyze online sources responsibly.

Recommended Reading

Social Media and Blogging Platforms

Putting Yourself Out There: Student Uses of Social Media and Blogging

The following is the introductory speech I made for a panel I moderated at the Digital Sandbox workshop. The panel’s central aims were to explore the positive benefits of social media and blogging, provide advice for building a network of students, academics, and professionals online, and consider some of the limitations of these communication platforms. With my introduction, I aimed to inject a sense of humor [it was early in the morning!], but I also wanted to seriously consider the challenges faced by humanities majors with regards to the lack of understanding from the general public about the nature of our work. Check out the links to read the sources I used in creating this speech. Tomorrow, I will point out some of the highlights of the panel and provide links to more resources that students can utilize if they are considering the possibility of using social media and blogging platforms to share their work. –NS

Over the past eight years, social media and blogging have become extremely popular forms of communication in American society. Many people today connect with their friends and loved ones through tweets, wall posts, and status updates as often as they send emails, talk on the phone, or engage with someone in person. As of May 2013, Facebook is the number one visited site in the entire world, while Twitter is number ten, and Blogspot–the world’s most popular blogging platform–is number twelve. [Note: this website’s rankings are updated periodically]. Although these communication platforms are undoubtedly popular among people of all ages, they have also sparked a great deal of controversy for the ways they have changed how we process information and interact with each other. One popular image of social media portrays these sites as potentially dangerous places that bring out the worst in their users.

Anthropologist Alexis Madrigal recently argued that for many users of Facebook, a hypnotic “machine zone” mentality takes over. “It’s a response to a fine-tuned feedback loop. It’s a powerful space-time distortion. You hit a button. Something happens… Maybe you win, maybe you don’t. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. It’s the pleasure of the repeat, the security of the loop.” Matt Labash, writing for The Weekly Standard, paints a portrait of Twitter that, as his article subtitle suggests, will lead to “the decline of Western Civilization, 140 characters at a time.” Self-absorbed, attention starved “Twidiots,” according to Labash, are actively destroying written languages all over the world and killing our brains with mindless tweets about coffee, LOLcats, and episodes of Jersey Shore. Finally, academic thinkers like Sir Peter Strothard, former editor of The Times Literary Supplement, have lamented the loss of authority ushered in by the rise of blogging. “Not everyone’s opinion is worth the same,” argues Strothard, and bloggers who share their passion for literature online do so “to the detriment of literature… People will be encouraged to buy and read books that are no good, the good will be overwhelmed, and we’ll be worse off.” It seems that for Strothard, the idea of readers relying on bloggers instead of academics for literary criticisms spells the doom of the entire field.

Meanwhile, the value of humanities studies has been actively questioned since the 2008 recession. Rising tuition costs, crippling student debt, and shaky job prospects have led to fewer students pursuing humanities degrees, and those that graduate have unemployment rates around ten percent, which is almost more than half the unemployment rate for those who graduate with science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. Some prominent political and education leaders have spoken out against the liberal arts and humanities. Florida Governor Rick Scott has asked, “is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.” North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory recently asserted, “if you want to take gender studies that’s fine, go to a private school and take it… I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.” Here in Indiana, Ivy Tech Community College President Tom Snyder has conceded that “it is time we all accept the fact that a traditional four-year liberal arts education is a poor investment for America’s middle class… [it] is now a luxury that few can afford.”

Social Media certainly has its dangers, ranging from overuse and addiction, to breaches of privacy, to bad cases of TMI. A recent survey also found that 8% of individuals aged 16-24 had lost a job opportunity due to their social media usage. But it seems as if the time is ripe to begin considering the possibility of using social media and blogging to promote humanities scholarship. Indeed, much of the criticism against humanities programs stems from the misunderstandings of non-humanities majors who are not aware of the work being done in the field. Diana Sorensen, Dean of Arts and Humanities at Harvard, has stated that the time has come for those in the humanities to show “what it is our work does so they don’t think we’re just living up in the clouds all the time.” How might humanities students use online communication platforms to promote their work to the broader public? What are the possible career benefits of having a digital presence? Can a tweet, status update, or blog post help graduate students land a job once school is done? [Note: Probably not]. This panel aims to educate students of all types on the wide range of digital tools, blogging websites, and media platforms students can use to advance their academic interests.

What Credentials Do I Need to be Taken Seriously?

About a year ago, I wrote an essay for my friend Joshua Hedlund’s blog PostLibertarian. Although my essay briefly discussed libertarianism, I was more interested in the contested nature of the terms “liberal” and  “conservative” within a political context and how those terms have changed in meaning throughout American history. At the time of that post, I had recently graduated from undergrad and was a teaching assistant for a school in St. Charles, Missouri. I was still hesitant about starting my own blog, but was asked to write a bit about my observations on the 2012 Presidential election, to which I happily accepted. Was it the best essay I’ve ever written? Probably not. Do I agree with everything I wrote at that time? Probably not. Nevertheless, I worked hard researching and writing that essay, and I think there are points worth discussing in it.

Well, I got an email from WordPress today saying that I had received a “pingback” from the essay. Somebody at an online political discussion forum cited my work to make some sort of argument about George Washington and liberalism. I’m not really sure what the exact argument was about, but the citation reinforces the fact that what you publish online is very public and easily searchable on Google, Bing, etc. For that reason, I take great pains to make sure my content is as clear and articulate as possible, because I know many critical eyes are looking at my work.

I had a major LOL moment, however, because “a proud adherent of the Constitution” (whatever that means) named “Jimmyb” from Texas responded to the original poster who cited my work with the following:

Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself? You are out of your league, and The Google will not alleviate lack of knowledge on the subject… Spare me your quote by a recent undergraduate with a degree in history and music performance [ME!]. As I said, you cannot learn this on The Google. How embarrassing. If you have to Google your replies for this discussion, you have no business being involved.  

Rather than addressing the content of my essay, “Jimmyb” dismisses my essay and the person who cited it because it came from Google and from someone who recently graduated college, apparently. Such a tactic is often referred to as a genetic logical fallacy, which involves judging something as good or bad based on where or who it came from. Second, I find it quite ironic that an anonymous poster at an online discussion forum can claim to have this wide knowledge of constitutional history while making potshots at people who put their name on their work. Finally, “Jimmyb” misunderstands my argument and takes it out of context, so at this point it is worthless to engage in any further discussion on that front, especially with someone who wants to post things anonymously.

The main point I wanted to bring up, however, is that “Jimmyb’s” comments do challenge us to question the value of blogs in fostering constructive discussion and making sound arguments about history. I am reminded of some comments my friend Bob Pollack made at his blog Yesterday…and Today after one of his blog posts was cited in a New York Times article on Julia Dent Grant a few months ago. He stated the following about blogs:

The problem with most newspaper articles and blogposts (yes, this blog included) is that there are usually no source footnotes and no peer review. In the case of the Disunion series, I don’t know who is reviewing or approving the articles the Times is running. Regarding sources, the articles are not footnoted, although they do list source references at the end of the article. This, of course, is only somewhat useful in identifying the source of specific information related in the article.    

John Fea, a history professor who also blogs at The Way of Improvement Leads Home, has also engaged in a similar discussion, asking his readers whether he should be considered an “Academic Blogger” or a “Blogger Who Is an Academic.” To wit:

At what point does “academic blogging” cease being academic blogging and become something else? On one hand, The Way of Improvement Leads Home has been successful because I have credentials as an academic historian. On the other hand, I write about a lot of things for which I do not have any specialized training.  For example, my thoughts on politics are often tempered by a kind of caution and prudence that comes with being a historian (or at least I like to think they are), but in the end I am expressing my opinions just like everyone else. 

In my opinion, the essay I wrote a year ago and my blog today are not academic resources. This website is a personal blog that discusses academic content, but I am not an academic blogger. I have credentials as a trained historian and certified teacher (although that wasn’t good enough for “Jimmyb”), but much of what I write here consists of opinions and questions I have about history. That said, I have learned a lot from reading other people’s blogs, and I don’t hesitate to cite the work of other bloggers on this website (although I have yet to cite a blog post on an academic research paper. I’ve seen academic papers that have done so, however, and there are Chicago guidelines for properly citing blog posts).

“Jimmyb,” dismisses those who use Google for scholarly content, but the fact of the matter is that the younger generations are going to Google first–not scholarly books–when engaging in research for history projects, whether we like it or not. How do we use Google as a source of empowerment? Does all scholarly content need to come from a .edu or .gov website, or can a .wordpress.com site provide useable content for scholarly projects? What about Wikipedia? Does the author of this content need to have certain academic credentials to be cited by others online, or can anyone’s work be cited? For me, good content trumps the medium in which the content is produced. Of course books are important for our scholarly endeavors, and as Bob mentioned, scholarly books often benefit from the peer review process. But it seems to me that if somebody has good content to share online, we should take that content seriously and focus our criticisms on the content of that work rather than the credentials of the person writing the content. There are instances in which credentials may play a role in historical debate, but content is more important. I have no problem if somebody thinks my essay on liberalism and conservatism is wrong, but I’d rather have my content criticized rather than my credentials (or lack thereof).

By the way, if anyone wants to read about the changing linguistic nature of “liberalism” and “conservatism” from somebody with fancy Harvard credentials, I point you to Jonathan Hansen’s 2003 work The Lost Promise of Patriotism: Debating American Identity, 1890-1920.


News and Notes, March 11, 2013

I’ve got a lot of ideas running in my head that I want to share, but I’m in the process of creating an annotated bibliography for my thesis and putting together a brief presentation for the Gettysburg conference, which is happening later this week. I’ve seen other bloggers adopt the “News and Notes” format to hit upon things that are worth sharing but not necessarily worthy of a fully thought-out post, at least for the time being. So I’m stealing it for my own selfish benefit.

– There were more than 2,000 kids at the Indiana State House today for an education rally in support of vouchers and charter schools in Indiana. Trying to give tours to a few hundred of these youngsters was tiring. Jalen Rose, a former basketball player for the Indiana Pacers and current analyst for ESPN was in attendance and made a speech, which was sort of neat, although it was probably done to get the 2,000 kids excited about being at the State House rather than making any revelatory points about education reform. Regardless, it is always good to see athletes trying get involved in their communities, even if they sometimes make questionably funny decisions. By the way, Indiana has the largest voucher program in the United States.

The Bureau of Manufactured History, the creation of two bloggers looking to uncover “the unconscious content of the city,” is now in Indianapolis for the next month and a half to explore our content here. Click on the link for some neat vignettes and pictures about life in the self-proclaimed “Crossroads of America.” I’ll admit that the longer I live here, the more I desire to learn about and appreciate the quirky history of this strange, yet strikingly comfortable area of the country.

An introduction to Big Data.

An introduction to some really good math-rock: The Bulletproof Tiger: Wanna Kiss About It?

– Time permitting, I’m trying to get better at playing funk bass. Trying this video and sheet music for starters.