William Blair says that the writings of "… the so-called amateur historians… falls into the category of 'revisionist'- ideologically driven work that ignores objectivity."

He calls himself a Civil War Historian. Is he in the 'Academic World' or the 'Amateur' side of the feudal divide?

He makes some good points about the surprising gaps in the literature, but he slaps us amateur historians and genealogists with condescention.

There's a heapin' bowlful of professors up in them thar towers cranking out some of those 60,000 titles that I'll bet at least 'one' of which IGNORES OBJECTIVITY!

Sorry Blair, I'm a little confused; you got on base but you didn't knock it out of the park.

Perhaps archivists and historians need to come up with a better way of collaboration. It worries me that that they (archivists, according to Thavolia Glymph) control whose papers are worth collecting and whose voices are worth conserving.

Just my 2 cents in keeping the dialog going.

Peace,
"Guided by the Ancestors"