Pardon My Tizzy ...
There are professional historians who take what they do seriously, regardless of the political consequences of what they find. But I no longer have any illusion that these"professional standards" are adhered to by the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S.I took that as an insult to the"vast majority of history professors teaching in the U. S." Called on it, Cramer claimed that that wasn't what he meant to say and a Brown University student, James Kabala, (scroll down to comments) came to Cramer's rescue by pointing out some ambiguity in his language.
Pardon my tizzy, but Cramer's responsible for saying what he means in unambiguous terms. If he means only to cast aspersions on a minority, a majority but not an overwhelming majority of history professors, or an overwhelming majority of history professors, it's up to him to make his meaning clear. It isn't up to his readers to intuit it. English Composition 101, Clayton. Further, if your intent is only to cast aspersions on a substantial minority of historians in the United States, you assume responsibility for offering substantiating evidence, which of course you don't. Beyond that, if you want to cast those aspersions on the way I do history, my books and articles are there for you to check. That isn't what you do. You prefer lazy, sleazy innuendo and smears. Finally, if you're going to pretend to publish a book, don't bellyache and whine about having to live up to the standards that cost Michael Bellesiles his job.