Talk:New Western History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The final section of the final paragraph is problematic:

"As in the fields of American Revolutionary and Civil War history, educated Americans have been drawn to the work of non-academic or “popular” historians like David McCullough, Ken Burns, Barbara Tuchman, Stephen Ambrose, and others to find a balanced interpretation of American history." Who are these "educated Americans"? Do only "educated" Americans read these books? Could "educated" also mean "academic"? The implication is that before Ambrose et al., the reading public was reading academic history, and now it isn't. I am not so sure that it ever read academic history. What is the real trend that may (or may not) be going on here? If there is a particular trend, it needs not only to be stated with less bias (incidentally, can we be so sure that people are reading Ambrose, McCullough and company for a "balanced interpretation"?), but it needs a source to back it up, as well. --Ibnalhamar (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)