If an historian has a political axe to grind, there's a chance they'll grind it, facts be damned.
This is why we *should* return to the "bro-y" (really? My mom and plenty of other women were perfectly happy to tell you that "you don't know what you're talking about") heyday of the '60s-'90s. Skepticism is a *practice*; when you hold back in deference to someone's claims of getting their feelings hurt, you chip away at a foundation of truth.
Why would you believe that solidarity and factualness go hand in hand?
I also don't think the recent uptick in precarity for academics explains how historical narratives melt at the first application of scrutiny. This was from 1973: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691645575/the-new-left-and-the-origins-of-the-cold-war
If an historian has a political axe to grind, there's a chance they'll grind it, facts be damned.
This is why we *should* return to the "bro-y" (really? My mom and plenty of other women were perfectly happy to tell you that "you don't know what you're talking about") heyday of the '60s-'90s. Skepticism is a *practice*; when you hold back in deference to someone's claims of getting their feelings hurt, you chip away at a foundation of truth.