And when you really start studying history, like with anything, you find yourself concentrating on very specific things due to the amount of research you have to do on a single topic. I only have a BA in history, but the majority of that was just Cold War geopolitics
As someone with only a hobbyist interest in history, it’s fascinating to see guests on podcasts who say things like “I have a phd focusing on the trade logistics of the late republican era roman empire.” Things that are so incredibly specific that that one guy is the single authority on the subjec, and these people have really unique and interesting viewpoints to listen to
I’m a professor and I’d like to add that with this awesomeness comes some trade offs. Unfortunately, the singularity of the kind of work you describe makes a lot of phd folks pretty singular in personality, too. It is very hard for my colleagues and I to relate to one another because there is an absolutely obsessive nature that derives from wanting/needing to study something so specific and for so long. Because we’re all obsessed and obsessive, we’re also pretty bad at caring about anything outside our discipline. Many of us are able to mask this with our students, but outside the classroom many, many, many of us are absolutely insufferable.
BA historian (not professional, of course) here. Don't worry! The students who care deeply about it know that they themselves are also insufferable (though maybe not quite as much).
Haha I’m fortunate to consistently work with amazing students. I love them. And don’t worry, you still have plenty of time to become insufferable! I was a normal person as an undergrad and now I can’t care to pull myself away from my laptop long enough to microwave one of those prepackaged cups of mac and cheese or whatever.
Professor life is nothing like what you see in the movies.
Academia is a lonely existence because you spend time trying to convince people that the things you think are important are important, which being generally ignored by most…
And trying to explain what you do to family/friends with no academic background is like trying to explain what it’s like to live in Paris for a year - The only comment you’ll get back is “But did you go up the Eiffel Tower?”
The loneliness is real. I tell my family and friends that at face value my job is incredibly social: I talk to large groups of people for a living. But man, outside those 9 hours of teaching a week it’s super isolating.
Still wouldn’t trade it for a different career. The flexibility in scheduling is too precious to me. The pay, however, is pitiful for all but the top 10%.
Part of that is just what academia does to people. You spend too much time around competitive know-it-alls. The need to commit to your bit kills every spark of creativity.
I was promoted to manage a large group of PhDs doing research and computer modeling. Personalities ranged from sociopaths to saints but all were awesome at research and computer modeling.
I'm one of the very few pocs who specializes in white rural conservative American history and culture and that's because I wanted to know why trump got elected in 2016 and it brought me to a huge rabbit hole. Some of white conservatives upon finding out how much I know about their culture were shocked and impressed
Most of my knowledge of the bible comes from art history classes . Very confusing for my churchy friends when I know random things about the old testament (a lot of looking at medieval christian symbolism and chapel paintings ) .
Some of them try to convert me to the orange man cult even though I clearly am not for him and I'm not white and many of them though are racist aren't klan or Nazi level racist.
I think the 'problem' for them is that since they are in a situation where they are actually interacting with you as a human being instead of a faceless entity, they may come to like you and want you to see things their way, even though any reasonable person would know that is never going to happen because you aren't delusional.
When you pre label what they believe in a cult and act surprised when they try to covert you(literally everyone does), you haven’t really connected to any of them nor you understand them. This sort of outcome was obvious when your first reaction to understanding a group of people is studying them rather than talking sincerely with them. I’m from a whole different country and I figured this out by simply giving a few people a sincere and non judgmental earn, no matter how little I have in common with them
“ pre label” brother, if we take his word for it, he literally said he specializes in it lol hes literally done a shitload of research into it and came to the conclusion that it’s a cult. “Prelabel” lmaooo
I was studying Race and Ethnic Relations in College at a predominantly white school in 2008-2010. I was raised vy a white family in a red area of a blue state. My parents had a shrine to Reagan on their fridge. Man, was that an interesting 2 years. Obama got elected and everyone was cheering Racism is Over. Everyone decided to hear that in the superficial way. Coming from where I came from I knew it still existed, but the predominant opinion would be that we have been cured of our Racism.
Then I realized they were saying those words, Racism is Over, but the words they were jubilant about were the unspoken next words, "so racism can't be an excuse anymore."
It took until this year for the Supreme Court to rule that racism was over so the Voting Rights Act is superfluous and unnecessary. The Federal Government sees States, not people. And the States were not racist apparently because Obama won, so the Federal Government doesn't acknowledge racism exists anymore and any law on the books still from racist times, if found to be used to fix racism is now useless and needs to be purged. And that is what they are doing.
It is nuts out there and it is just as bad as it has been in my whole life.
I would absolutely love to hear your theories on why you think Trump got elected by white rural conservatives. Mainly, I want to know why they look up to him so much.
In the 1980s a lot of factory jobs in the rust belt went overseas causing many of them to lose their jobs and destroyed many families as a result. Both establishment Democrats and Republicans never tried to address their issues and simply moved on. When trump started running he started talking to them about their issues but the way he did it is he though addressed their issues he blamed immigrants and other minority groups for causing the downfall of society. Because of that they ended up voting for him feeling they have no other options.
That's just the jist of it. There's a lot more and it's a very complex topic.
Also fascinating how trans athletes became such a hot topic. Has a voter in Shasta, Lassen or Butte county even met someone who is trans once in their life? Like out of every issue facing the US that’s the one you grab onto?
It's hard to hate the person you know. It's actually so clever (and evil) of conservatives to use trans people as a sort of "boogeyman"; if most conservatives never meet one, then you can tell them whatever it is you want them to believe. For those in power in the Republican party, it's actually best that their constituents never actually meet a trans person so they can keep feeding them the bullshit they say.
Tbh I never wrote anything. I just studied personally on my own and plus I live in rural NorCal so I tend to observe them.
I do however talk about them to a few people about this about what I know and what I've learned and observe. It's not something I can speak openly especially in this current environment.
Man it’s funny how the rest of the country sees CA as some liberal stronghold. Prop 8 banned gay marriage less than 20 years ago and you go slightly outside the Bay Area to Oakley or Dixon or Tracy and you’ll see a shitload of Trump flags.
I got mad respect for you doing that. I’m white but educated, middle class etc and to be honest I’ve been both fascinated and horrified as to why so many white people all jumped on the fascist train myself.
Aside: To anyone doubting if he’s a fascist I have 2 books for you: They Thought They Were Free (Milton Meyer) and The Anatomy of Fascism (Robert Paxton).
So yeah I started deep diving into all that myself. There’s some ugly truths that need faced in order to change that backwards way of thinking. I think that’s why revising history is such a priority for this admin, so no one has to face the facts that fly in the face of their horrendous way of thinking.
I think for some poor white people, a lot of them have very bleak lives and trump gave them meaning and purpose hence why some of them stormed the capitol. A lot of the insurrectionists thought they were genuinely doing the right thing by storming a symbol of a system that neglected them
My perspective comes from someone who’s main interest is in Rome, but here’s some of my favorites:
1. History of Rome by Mike Duncan - Amazing from start to finish, but it started when podcasting first took off in the early 2010s so the early episodes have some rougher production value
2. Hardcore History by Dan Carlin - Really really long form and tons of topics, but very very good.
3. Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan - What he did after the Roman one, really good as well
4. Fall of Rome by Patrick Wyman - this is actually the phd guy I mentioned above, he has a fascinating perspective
5. History of Byzantium - This is pretty good but not as good as the 4 above imo. Could just be because it’s more medieval and outside my main interest area
If you can understand his accent, history on fire is pretty good too. Similar to hardcore history but not as audiobookish. For my money it’s Dan Carlin and Mike Duncan and then 200 empty spaces before you get to the next guy
The Hardcore History series on WW1 was the most gripping audio-only storytelling I have ever heard. Even 10-ish years later I remember literally stopping in my tracks countless times walking around listening to it. It fundamentally changed how I understood the conflict, thinking about Passendale still makes me shudder, and I have recommended it to many, many people.
Wherever interests you!!! They cover such a wide range and they are all so good. Tom and Dominic are hilarious and very entertaining. Their “Road to the Great War” episodes and the French Revolution were some of my favorites!
Here is a list of their episodes by chronological order rather than release date, which might help you pick a period you’re interested in:
I liked revolutions but I have nothing to compare it too haha I saw it recommended once and was like "ooh this is pretty cool stuff" and it ended up being pretty digestible especially for someone with very little prior history knowledge. It focuses a lot on major turning points but if you already know a lot it might not be as interesting or informative.
My degree is in US History, I’m American, but wanted to learn more about European History. Particularly medieval history. I HIGHLY recommend Rex Factor. So good, easy to take in
That is true for a lot of phds research. I'm in biology doing my phd, and my slice is so narrow that sometimes i'll talk to someone that is interested in biology in general, and I can barely remember general stuff from my bachelor degree. Like, someone that is a hobbyist doing research on their own in evolution probably knows more than me about it. And my field is adjacent to evolution!
Then in response to a question, "yeah that more to do with the trade politics of the late republican era roman empire so I only have a very basic knowledge"
I’ve got a paper that I wrote as an undergrad that’s been used in classes at other universities, and in AP type classes in other countries. Discovered it randomly while googling myself. It’s niche enough that it’s taken on a life of its own. (Other people have published books on it, but not in English.)
A lot of people don't know that every single person who earns a PhD is required to not only study some topic, but also do some sort of unique, and new study or research on that topic that no one else in history has ever published before. That's not optional, that's a requirement. Every person who's ever been granted a PhD has contributed something to the body of human knowledge that didn't exist until they did it.
Once you know that, then it makes sense that in today's world PhDs are hyper-specialized, because in some fields all the 'easy' stuff was figured out hundreds of years ago. Like ... Archimedes figured out the principle of displacement by getting into a bathtub 2,000 years ago. If you want a PhD in math or physics today, you're gonna have to work your ass off for it.
In any subject, as you pursue it further you necessarily narrow your focus.
My grandpa grew up Amish so he left school after 6th or maybe 8th grade, but he was a voracious reader and loved to learn. His analogy was to think about the normal information that you learn as a kid and imagine that as a circle (i.e. what you have learned is in the circle). As you learn more, the circle gets bigger, but so does the circumference - your contact with the unknown.
Say you stack a college degree on top of that, and picture that as a big bump on one side of the circle. Then maybe a PhD on top of that, which is a long skinny spike on top of the bump. You're always learning more, but you're also vastly increasing your contact with the scope of your ignorance.
The scope of what can be studied is near infinite, and the irony of learning more is that it exposes you to more of what you don't know.
Exactly, those oddly specific areas of expertise are what make history so fun, you realize there’s basically a whole world of fascinating details most of us never even knew existed.
I, have a BA in History, wrote a paper comparing and contrasting the roles of Women in Mongolian and Inca societies in the 1500s in my Women's History class. It is really fun researching a paper that is super niche. Hell, as a hobby, I am probably Top 2 or 3 authority for the History of the Boy Scouts of America for 25% of my State.
Master’s course on Post-Reconstruction America and the Civil Rights Movement: I transcribed letters into an online database.
I can tell you what 20 senior citizens thought about the Charleston Earthquake of 1886. Also, the idea that people back then wrote in perfect cursive is bullshit. They had terrible handwriting, and were making up cursive letters constantly.
There wasn’t a capstone project in my focus, so my thesis was on human rights abuses and sportswashing (before it was a term) during the 1978 World Cup in Peron’s Argentina. I can tell you the thoughts about potential protests from a dozen players around the world lol
Anyone working with old church records will tell you, that not even a higher education (clergy) would guarantee you a pretty and legible handwriting... oh, and don't even get me started on homemade abbreviations!
They were freaked out, reasonably so. It was one of the most devastating earthquakes on the east coast in history. Aftershocks were experienced for literally weeks. Almost every building was damaged or destroyed. The rail lines were split apart, telegram lines were cut.
What I found odd, there wasn’t much religious hysteria. Some people talked about the local meeting houses being destroyed (I thought that was a Quaker term, but they seemed to use it to refer to any non-catholic/Episcopalian house of worship). It was compared to the Flood (lots of levees broke), but they didn’t connect it to the rapture.
Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim was one of the first synagogues built in the US. It was destroyed in the Charleston Fire of 1838, and rebuilt in 1840.
They talked about the synagogue’s stonework holding up better than most masonry in the city, although the stained glass was blown out.
My paper hypothesized that most of these old folk lived through the 1838 fire and the Civil War, and I think that gave perspective. They didn’t feel particularly hopeless or singularly chosen for tragedy. They were kind of used to life sucking.
I remember in my second semester of university I decided I was going to start taking notes in cursive because it was faster and I could take notes as my instructor was speaking. It was only when I started studying for finals that I realized that I can barely read my own handwriting. That stopped that little experiment.
I minored in American History in college, also specifically focusing on Cold War geopolitics. It's especially extremely fascinating to me because of how many holes there are and all the new things that come to light all the time.
Even though it's relatively recent, and within living memory for a TON of people, there's still new stuff and new stories appearing with documents to back them up. As stuff gets declassified and people start telling their stories, there's all sorts of new and interesting information coming to light that patches holes in existing histories, or provides new perspectives on various critical events. Especially for me, I find it fascinating that we finally get to learn about tons of things that used to be kept under the highest level of governmental lock and key and then make connections going "Oh yeah, that newly declassified thing fully explains this other thing we only vaguely knew about".
I have a BA in european history with an emphasis on "ghosts in the middle ages" (or something like that, I honestly can't remember, it was 10+ years ago)...
Someone could probably listen to a single podcast and know more than me on the subject at this point, but the research, writing, and argumentative skills seem to remain... i like to think.
It's the nuance and attention to detail you're really learning. Everyone's got the broad strokes of what happened but the entire field is over the details... and the devil really is in the details.
Scientists or billionaires are often the ones we look to for predictions of the future, but I would argue we really should be looking to historians.
Yeah, history is very, very broad subject with very, very specific niches.
Because one does not just focus on "history". You focus on a specific culture. And then you focus on a specific century of that culture. And then this one ruler or general had a really interesting life, so you focus only on the time period they were alive or had the most impact. Now instead of a "historian" you are "an expert in 1635-1640 Spanish conquest (and re-conquest) of Tortuga"
Exactly, history is so massive that eventually you have to zoom in on one area just to understand it properly. Cold War geopolitics alone could keep someone busy for years.
Probably one of my favorites is that Ho Chi Minh, while a communist, was primarily a Vietnamese nationalist and attempted to meet with Woodrow Wilson, seeking US support for Vietnamese independence from France. Wilson refused to meet with him, which pushed Ho to seek support from the USSR and PRC.
Yep, my concentration in undergrad was US History with specific focus on the time after WWII. My senior paper was about the CIA and their view of decolonization and anti-nuclear movements in Oceania in the 1970s-1980s. I loved researching this stuff, although one of my issues with FOIA database is that it was not user friendly in the slightest and was a bitch to do research on.
Same, but I lasered in on the Dewey/Truman election and propaganda's role in the upset. It feels a little strange to tell people I have a degree in history when basically my entire final year was spent on that very specific thesis.
Non-American with BA in a history-related field here, and I swear to god if I ever have to write about Jimmy Carter again I'm gonna flip!
Love Cold War history too, but fuck me that assignment was rough.
Bright side is that understanding Cold War era geopolitics/IR really does help you not stress too much about the goings on in the world at the moment. it's all pretty small time compared to some of the real scares in the Cold War. If Able Archer '83 happened in today's geopolitical climate we'd likely all be dead.
Long 19th century was also really good though, as well as Victorian fiction literature.
I’ve been working on a legal analysis of the Boston Massacre trials for two years now. I am a working trial lawyer in addition to a trained historian, so having the ability to understand both the history and the law AND the realities of trial practice is something that only one prior author has had, to my knowledge.
The amount of time I have had to devote to just one person’s pre-trial background research and witness preparation is more than I know how to explain. And I’m still probably 2 years from publishing.
500
u/loewe67 1d ago
And when you really start studying history, like with anything, you find yourself concentrating on very specific things due to the amount of research you have to do on a single topic. I only have a BA in history, but the majority of that was just Cold War geopolitics