The difference between amateur and professional

[iberia]

Last week's (Jan. 20th) edition of The Economist featured a book review in the "Books and Arts" section revealing that last week (Jan. 16) in Beijing and London evidence was revealed bolstering the case that Zheng He, a 15th century Chinese explorer, explored and mapped the New World long before Columbus, between 1405 and 1435. This evidence is

Comments

[iberia]

All your points are well taken, and I agree with them. Unhealthy specialization is something I have been keeping in the back of my head as of late, and have spent much time reading material related to my subjects (generally early modern and modern europe) in parallel (economics, political theory, philosophy, etc.) not just because it helps me understand my subject better, but understand other areas of study as well. In fact, I for a long time now I wish I had more time to fully educate myself formally in several disciplines.

As for an effort to keep people out of my profession, I have constantly grappled with my efforts to make my degree seem worthwhile in a sense wider than "economic vitality" and balance that against elitism in history. I certainly don't think someone needs a degree in history to do research and write history. In fact I believe that history is one of the few subjects one doesn't need a formal education to learn- all you have to do is read books, (or even just watch the History Channel!)

I must have come off as being too elitist...I didn't mean it that way. I have experienced the boredom of listening to amateurs talk about history, but that doesn't mean I think their opinions aren't worthwhile. Especially when academics can write peer reviewed junk that puts one to sleep and can have errors in it to boot (your Shelby Foote referrence is a good example and I agree with you there).