Once again historians are debating the difference between writing for the public and writing for themselves

Historians who get to make a living writing & researching have a fascinating job and that leads to those of us who are historians (including those who don’t work in the field, like me) having very interesting discussions. Lately, I’ve seen historians, particularly ones who work in academia, have a conversation that revolves around two distinct types of writing: writing for the public & academic writing. I wanted to share bits and pieces of this conversation, introducing readers to some neat historians in the process, and sharing my own thoughts as a young historian who doesn’t have a graduate degree but does a decent amount of public writing myself.

The tweet that I saw that as far as I can tell is the very beginning of this discussion (if nothing else it was reactions to this tweet that I saw that introduced me to this latest version of this conversation, which is one historians have been having for a while now) was a tweet by Josh Marshall (the editor & publisher of Talking Points Memo and the subject of the one of the best activist & historian articles I’ve ever read).

Other historians got involved as well, including Megan Kate Nelson (author of “Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War“), James T. Downs (editor & contributor to “Connexions Histories of Race & Sex in North America“), Karen L. Cox (who wrote an immensely educational book about the Daughters Of The Confederacy, entitled: “Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture“) Danielle L. McGuire (“At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape and Resistance–a New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power“), & other fascinating historians whose work could & should be researched by anyone who ends up enjoying this article! ...