Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Would historiography be an appropriate topic for a blog objectively about history, or would I have to write about the history of controversies concerning historiography? Does that mean that proper historians are only allowed to guide the path of their chosen profession passively? Do historians get to cross the line from scholar to activist, in cases concerning their particular historical field or about the nature of history? Or is that a job left best to philosophers of history? Even more fundamental, who gets to make the questions about historiography that others will pour over?

Finally, how do we decide who gets to be a card-carrying member of the historian boys' club and who gets left out in the rain? (Presumably next to the History Channel)

Maybe we should ask the academic, tenured-at-fourteen and all around serious historian; he is, after all, the one with a several strings of letter flowing from the end of his name. Surely she has the best answers that are available, besides having those letters that follow her name means that she must inherently be better trained and more knowledgeable about history than any of us 'amateurs.' Right?

Not so, according to David Petruzzi. In his View historians should be judged not by the number of qualifications and fellowships awarded to them, but by the quality of the work they produce. He argues against what he perceives as a gross mis-characterization of historians; he rightly points out that many academic historians wouldn't be remembered even a month after they pass away because they simply don't produce enough material or it isn't of sufficient quality for many to take notice of it. On the other hand, Mr. Petruzzi stresses (a little to heavily) that many 'amateurs' like himself are accomplished authors of books and articles which appear in mass media and historical publication.

Mr. Petruzzi also pointedly remarks that the difference between amateur and professional historians is different from practically every profession. In the case of sports for instance, the instant an individual is paid to play sports or receives a monetary award from their performance they automatically become professionals in their field. However, Mr. Petruzzi although receiving payment for apparently all of his publications (He makes that fact exceedingly clear) he still can't seem to get his rightful membership in the Historians guild. In fact, according to Mr. Petruzzi the only thing that separates him from professional statues is three magical letters: Ph.D.

While I sympathize with the critiques that Mr. Petruzzi lodges against our institution, it seems strange to me that he offers an ad homeneim response to the system that is guilty of using ad homeneim to discriminate suppossedly against would be prodigious historians. While it's true that not every person who's a doctor can dramatically save cardiac arrest patients while enjoying a nice dinner, or even say, write fluently according to the standards and norms of their field; having credentials is enough to prove that you can at least communicate effectively and produce something that would be relevant to individuals interested in history at some point for one reason or another. Which is on the whole, a much fairer judge of that person's contribution than: 'I have mainstream appeal/success' (a la History channel style.)