of Battlefields and Bibliophiles has once again kicked off the argument of amateur vs professional historian.
He writes this:
Some fellow bloggers weighed in recently on the distinctions between amateur and professional historians in the world of Civil War historiography (for example here, and here, and here). I could venture a few opinions on that myself, but probably not without insulting someone I know on both sides of that definition. As a personal aside, I do not claim the mantle of “historian” for myself, because I don’t fit the bill. I don’t have the advanced training, and I don’t spend a lot of time doing original research. I read a lot, and I distill and I synthesize, and sometimes that leads to observations that seem more fresh than stale, at least to people who have read less. Rather than professional versus amateur, it might be more useful to distinguish between good, and lousy. The good ones contribute something lasting.
Go here to read the rest of this excellent post.