Anonymous #2 20h

It’s funny that you think historians are rich.

44

Anonymous #2 20h

Not really, there’s not much money in academia unless you go into a professor role, and even then that’s not exactly rich

30

Anonymous #2 20h

I wish I was lol. Not that I regret my degree but it isn’t exactly bringing in the big bucks

25

Anonymous #5 20h

“In some ways” like Facebook loudmouths

40

Anonymous #5 19h

I say this as an academic that isn’t rich, the correlation is not fake. If you look at polls, Democrats dominate the over 200k/ year and under 20k per year income categories and lose the middle, at least in 2024. Most people with advanced degrees are not academics, they’re doing things that make actual money (unlike me)

-9

Anonymous #2 19h

Out of curiosity what is your field of study?

13

Anonymous #8 19h

I mean people like Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Oswald Spengler, Pat Buchanan, Donald Davidson, Mel Bradford, and so on

1

Anonymous #5 19h

It is admittedly a pretty small sample group, but in the case of historians, it’s just not true. The majority lean progressive https://f1000research.com/articles/14-320 Also fwiw I have my BA in history and I can’t recall even a single history professor in four years that was conservative lol. And I went to college in a deep red state too

21

Anonymous #6 18h

In our current post-modern society you can make that argument, but 20 to 30 years of liberal or progressive historians is a drop in the bucket compared to history broadly

-7

Anonymous #5 18h

So basically, the historians with the most information we have ever had lean progressive? Who’da thunk it

22

Anonymous #5 18h

Wow it’s almost like we learn from past generations and have more information to work from

20

Anonymous #6 18h

Absolutely astonishing news!

19

Anonymous #6 17h

Engineering

-6

Anonymous #7 13h

And the other is a mass conspiracy…

15

Anonymous #2 13h

Dawg wtf you mean you’re not making money in engineering? Literally how?

15

Anonymous #2 8h

Be fr

12

Anonymous #1 8h

Presentism is bad academia in history, this isn’t science

-4

Anonymous #5 8h

No it isn’t, I can tell you that as someone who has gotten a degree in historical studies. There’s multiple frameworks used in analysis of historical figures and events. You don’t know what you’re talking about

2

Anonymous #5 8h

Also #1 wasn’t even necessarily talking about presentism. We already know more than we did decades ago because of newer technology, more stuff being unearthed, and other factors too

1

Anonymous #6 8h

I’m not disconnected from historical scholarship either. Presentism is in fact bad academia, hate to break it to you

1

Anonymous #6 8h

New things being unearthed doesn’t necessarily equate to being more progressive as #1 implied

1

Anonymous #5 8h

No. It equates to us having more knowledge and information though

1

Anonymous #6 8h

Progressivism is a philosophy broadly. That is developed in a different way compared to historical developments in academia

1

Anonymous #5 8h

Oh interesting, what is your major/degree in?

1

Anonymous #6 8h

Education, specifically in Social Science. My focus in that regard is history and government

1

Anonymous #6 8h

My major, I apologize, I meant to clarify

1

Anonymous #5 8h

Oh that’s so funny, I was an education major at one point and got pretty far into it too. Just when I did my level 2 student teaching I realized it wasn’t for me personally I can say that, while definitely not totally disconnected from historical academia, it is however a different beast than historical studies. Teaching tends to be more focused on communication of that information to students, whereas historical studies tends to be more about the research and analysis of that information

1

Anonymous #6 8h

Yeah, I plan to do both historical scholarship formally along with teaching, which is why I plan to get a MA in History after this. If I might ask, is there a reason you went with historical studies as opposed to a traditional history degree?

1

Anonymous #6 8h

My Education major is in Social Science also, so it’s primarily history, political science, and so on. I of course focus on history

1

Anonymous #5 8h

Yeah I don’t think anyone has denied that progressivism is a broader philosophy. The point is that these people, who are educated, tend to lean progressive. And it is the case that the more well educated you are the more you tend to lean progressive in your own personal beliefs

8

Anonymous #5 8h

For a series of honestly very boring and complicated reasons it was easier to jump on over to that degree after I decided education wasn’t my thing. The oversimplification is that I already had a lot of sociology and pol sci classes from when I was in education bc I was going to be a social studies teacher. Liked the history part, and in theory I like the teaching part, but it’s the baggage that surrounds education that wore me down (administration, common core, etc)

1

Anonymous #6 8h

I would disagree, respectfully. Personally I am a conservative (paleoconservative), and I can honestly say that the majority of my circles (who are also conservative) are very well educated. So to say that education causes a tendency to lean progressive, seems a bit overstated

1

Anonymous #6 8h

Interesting

1

Anonymous #6 8h

You could probably always get the certification later on anyways as well, so that probably was a good move

1

Anonymous #5 8h

Ok but your own personal experience doesn’t matter in the face of the stats. I’ve already linked somewhere in this comment section a study that - while yes, admittedly has a small sample size - shows a pretty noticeable trend. It’s not saying there’s no conservatives in academia, it means that X% are

3

Anonymous #6 8h

A small sample size is certainly not something to gloss over. Also, don’t forget that correlation does not always equal causation

1

Anonymous #5 8h

Yeah once I get more money I’m either getting my MA in history or my teaching certification since i already have like 80% of that done lol. Thats a problem for me down the line

1

Anonymous #5 8h

I don’t think I made the claim that history is necessarily the only cause of people becoming progressive. And I’m not glancing over the sample size, I fully admit that it’s an imperfect source. But I’m not exactly going to go digging past the first page of Google search results for a damn YikYak debate lol, there are better things I can do with my time

1

Anonymous #6 8h

Like if the day comes I’m putting together an academic thesis in a YY comment section I’ll know I’m terminally online

1

Anonymous #5 8h

I mean, it’s a fact that people in higher ed tend to lean progressive, it’s not always the case obviously, but you can look around higher ed, and look through the statistics. And personally i think the more you see how the world has gone, the more you realize that progress rather than conservation is generally best, with many very important exceptions. We can totally disagree about that, but most are generally progressive because they’ve seen what happens when you stay, or regress.

1

Anonymous #1 8h

I know full well how the world has gone, we need Jesus and we deserve punishment for our wickedness. But I do believe wholeheartedly that traditionalism is the natural way of things, progressivism is a fundamental inversion of the natural high-low order, and it aspires to “progress” past the need for our traditions and society. We have an ancient inheritance, and I would say that a higher level of education (not just postmodern and Marxist-esque class struggle philosophy) produces conservatives

1

Anonymous #5 8h

If traditionalism is the natural way of things then when are we going to get around to burning heretics at the stake again?

1

Anonymous #6 7h

It depends on what they did that was heretical, it has to be punishable by capital punishment in accordance with the Law of God. Really though, you ought not to be worried about that. Romanism is a heresy, and as such was not prudent whom they killed, nor did they particularly give prudence regarding what was committed

0

Anonymous #6 7h

Really heresy is the wrong word to use in this regard anyways, for my first statement that is, not the Romanism one

1

Anonymous #6 7h

Crime would be a better term

1

Anonymous #5 7h

Ok, I’m genuinely not saying this to try and sound snarky, but you do realize what you’re doing right now is what people in occupations related to history should be avoiding, right? You’re clearly devoutly religious and also going on about how traditionalism is the natural way of things. That’s not history, that’s purely you letting your own personal beliefs get in the way

6

Anonymous #5 59m

christian nationalism is a plague.

1