She co-writes in an op-ed that Election results denial (Trump) is in fact Democracy denial which is the same as Holocaust denial, though Hitler and Trump obviously are not exchangeable. Both rejections of obvious reality have in common the Big Lie, about which Hitler already wrote:
“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
She writes that in the beginning, it seems laughable, a fringe group attempt to deny what everyone knows. But it’s not so innocent. If you don’t fight it, it spreads. Sensationalists spread it around widely until it gets into books and a wider section of the population starts believing it.
And now, an apparent Trump fanatic (mis)construed her piece as if she equals Holocaust denial with voter loss denial and so equates the Holocaust with something else which diminishes the Holocaust which is tantamount to Holocaust denial so Lipstadt is a Holocaust denier. It’s like calling Ben-Gurion and Herzl anti-Zionists. The author accomplished his ridiculous assault by equalizing Holocaust denial and the Holocaust.
He’s a lawyer, so specialized in rhetoric tricks. But this already shows how voter loss denial has left the loony fringe and is becoming mainstream.
Women are the Best Historians
Women are not just as good as men in historical research, they’re much better. The competition is completely uneven.
In general, they listen better, are better at being humble, at expressing empathy, at drawing stories from witnesses. Fortunately, they are also better able to hold side by side (multi-processing) several explanations for what happened because life is too complex to be covered by one simple theory. They don’t as much need the limelight and the fame and are more willing to work hard behind the scene. Their self-esteem doesn’t solely depend on their job success because they often also have a family to run.
But what about all the famous, award-winning male history professors?
It’s easy. This is a bunch of male historians who quote each other all the time, elevate their and each other’s egos constantly, explain to each other how important they are, underpay the women, push their own friends for positions, and most of them have a wife who takes care of her paying job and the household, and they write books that they dedicate to their wives.
These men must be terrified by the idea of the better women taking over. I don’t think that they’re correct. They’d allow for their male colleagues–if willing to work hard and spend less time parading their importance.
What makes me say this? I know a couple of historians, I have quite a number of history books (more and more women publish even when they never are taken seriously by the historic establishment). So I looked if the facts on the Internet agreed.
Wikipedia doesn’t register Historians of Jews or Judaism, Jewish historians, or Israeli historians. Written out of history. Antisemitism is so alive.
What I did find is that in the US, ten years ago, 40% of the students were female, 30% of the faculty was women, and two-third of historians outside the academic world were women. In the history department’s old-boys club, the sexism is deafening, and most of the men don’t hear it.