I spent over ten years on Twitter. I was committed to challenging bad history from individuals and groups committed to distorting the history of the Civil War era. If I saw a tweet pushing the Black Confederate myth, you can bet that I offered a quick and convincing response. I joined other #twitterstorians committed to highlighting the complexity and nuance of history.
I was required to join Twitter in 2015 by our new public school superintendent in North Carolina. And she checked that you were on it; she used it as a training tool. But she had come from a much smaller district and soon realized how unwieldy we were, so the training faded away.
I stayed on and started following some football (yes, old ladies like football 😄), but then I discovered #twitterstorians and WOW! I loved following Joanne Freeman, Kevin Gannon, Kevin Kruse, and our own Kevin Levin (the three Kevins!). When you did the Twitter book club on Caroline Janney’s book *Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation,* I met people I still follow.
I also follow a lot of school librarians (my profession) to lend support and encouragement in the ongoing *Fahrenheit 451* book wars.
But with all that, I just don’t go there much anymore; only when I wonder how those friends are doing.
And I heartily concur with Michael and others - you did not waste your time.
I don't think you wasted your time on Twitter. I, for one, probably would not have found your work and being exposed to your scholarship has broadened my own perspectives on certain aspects of the Civil War.
I do think twitter is a useful space for historians to engage in addressing "bad history." Somebody has to do that somewhere and Twitter is about as close to a broad based social media network as there is-I think it is even broader than facebook. But the general population are going to believe what they are going to believe. If those beliefs are too outlandish I think someone (historians?) has to challenge those beliefs. But I also do not think you will ever really know the scope of impact your presence actually has. So I suppose I am saying I think twitter is an appropriate place for historians to ply their craft but impact of doing that verses not doing that may not be knowable.
Personally, I am not certain Twitter is good for sicilian discourse. I think it has greatly sped up our reaction to events. You have much of the country responding immediately to things that 20 years ago we might not have know about for days. That said I am still on twitter. I use it to follow the war in Ukraine out of professional interest as a former US Army Tanker. I follow a couple of open source intel sites that verify, to extent possible, loss claims and tactical maneuver claims from the battlefield. I also follow several re-tired US Army and several re-tired UK officers that I respect who appear to still have ties to the military who occasionally offer commentary on developments. I also follow most NPS administered sites, the AHA, several archaeological organizations and Roman archaeological sites in the UK and users like that. It helps me stay current on things of interest. Again that said there is a lot of garbage that floats in between.
My final though here I don't think you wasted your time. I suspect there are people who miss you.
I concur with Michael’s idea in his first paragraph that if it wasn’t for Twitter, I wouldn’t have found you or the other historians to whose substacks I now subscribe. (I think that’s grammatically correct) I have not cancelled my Twitter account, but I very rarely visit the site. The main reason I now visit it is to watch video replays of either good plays by the Cleveland Guardians or the multiple hockey teams I enjoy watching.
Thanks, Michael. I certainly don't want to ignore or even undervalue the many positive experiences that I made on Twitter. In the end, the balance sheet weighed too heavily for me on the negatives. My perceptions have also been framed by the fact that I am having a much more positive experience on Substack.
While I certainly agree in general, I can't regret discovering the work of Kevin M. Kruse on Twitter. Whether the platform will survive its current "management", however, seems doubtful.
I encountered the work of so many talented historians on twitter, including Kruse. My reading list was shaped by the recommendations and interactions. Certainly no regrets about that.
Having quit Twitter after the 2016 election cycle, I’m out of the Twitter loop. It would seem to me, however, that for those historians who have the interest, the time, and the energy, Twitter can be a useful tool to engage a broad audience. Twitter can also be exhausting, anxiety producing, and generally non-productive.
For every legitimate historian in Twitter, with good intentions, there are 10 self-proclaimed historians running the anti-government, pro-secession, Lost Cause Nobility theme straight at them. They come for anyone daring to challenge their narrative.
I’m sorry you interpreted support for what you post as “piling on” and I’m sure I have done so. Having actually changed a mind or two in my efforts, I know that a whole group of knowledgeable people can sometimes make some folks re-think or reconsider what they thought. I don’t know of anything else, except personal experience that has done so. But of course I do not mean the toxic name-calling, insults to intelligence or cruelty many on Twitter enjoyed.
Honestly I miss some of the great folks I followed on Twitter and I continue (as here) to seek them in other forums. But I do not miss Twitter at all.
I am as guilty as the next person in engaging in some of the behavior that I described in the post. I also miss my interactions with any number of people on Twitter, but I haven't once second guessed my decision to leave.
I tend to agree. There are good outlets for history on social media, but Twitter generally isn’t one of them. It’s platform allows for quick interactions, but not much depth in discussion.
That said, I have seen vigorous, intelligent, respectful debates and discussions about 19th Century baseball between MLB Historian John Thorn and Keith Olbermann on Twitter, but they are discussions between friends who are experts in their field on a non-political topic. For interactions like that, Twitter is fine, but that’s an exception.
I was required to join Twitter in 2015 by our new public school superintendent in North Carolina. And she checked that you were on it; she used it as a training tool. But she had come from a much smaller district and soon realized how unwieldy we were, so the training faded away.
I stayed on and started following some football (yes, old ladies like football 😄), but then I discovered #twitterstorians and WOW! I loved following Joanne Freeman, Kevin Gannon, Kevin Kruse, and our own Kevin Levin (the three Kevins!). When you did the Twitter book club on Caroline Janney’s book *Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation,* I met people I still follow.
I also follow a lot of school librarians (my profession) to lend support and encouragement in the ongoing *Fahrenheit 451* book wars.
But with all that, I just don’t go there much anymore; only when I wonder how those friends are doing.
And I heartily concur with Michael and others - you did not waste your time.
Thanks, Suzanne. I am grateful for the many connections that I made on Twitter and the reception that I received from so many people, including you.
The first sentence in the last paragraph was supposed to refer to social not Sicilian discourse
Don’t you just love auto-correct? But I will admit that it does make for some “interesting” ideas.
I don't think you wasted your time on Twitter. I, for one, probably would not have found your work and being exposed to your scholarship has broadened my own perspectives on certain aspects of the Civil War.
I do think twitter is a useful space for historians to engage in addressing "bad history." Somebody has to do that somewhere and Twitter is about as close to a broad based social media network as there is-I think it is even broader than facebook. But the general population are going to believe what they are going to believe. If those beliefs are too outlandish I think someone (historians?) has to challenge those beliefs. But I also do not think you will ever really know the scope of impact your presence actually has. So I suppose I am saying I think twitter is an appropriate place for historians to ply their craft but impact of doing that verses not doing that may not be knowable.
Personally, I am not certain Twitter is good for sicilian discourse. I think it has greatly sped up our reaction to events. You have much of the country responding immediately to things that 20 years ago we might not have know about for days. That said I am still on twitter. I use it to follow the war in Ukraine out of professional interest as a former US Army Tanker. I follow a couple of open source intel sites that verify, to extent possible, loss claims and tactical maneuver claims from the battlefield. I also follow several re-tired US Army and several re-tired UK officers that I respect who appear to still have ties to the military who occasionally offer commentary on developments. I also follow most NPS administered sites, the AHA, several archaeological organizations and Roman archaeological sites in the UK and users like that. It helps me stay current on things of interest. Again that said there is a lot of garbage that floats in between.
My final though here I don't think you wasted your time. I suspect there are people who miss you.
I concur with Michael’s idea in his first paragraph that if it wasn’t for Twitter, I wouldn’t have found you or the other historians to whose substacks I now subscribe. (I think that’s grammatically correct) I have not cancelled my Twitter account, but I very rarely visit the site. The main reason I now visit it is to watch video replays of either good plays by the Cleveland Guardians or the multiple hockey teams I enjoy watching.
Thanks, Michael. I certainly don't want to ignore or even undervalue the many positive experiences that I made on Twitter. In the end, the balance sheet weighed too heavily for me on the negatives. My perceptions have also been framed by the fact that I am having a much more positive experience on Substack.
Hear, hear!!!
While I certainly agree in general, I can't regret discovering the work of Kevin M. Kruse on Twitter. Whether the platform will survive its current "management", however, seems doubtful.
I encountered the work of so many talented historians on twitter, including Kruse. My reading list was shaped by the recommendations and interactions. Certainly no regrets about that.
Having quit Twitter after the 2016 election cycle, I’m out of the Twitter loop. It would seem to me, however, that for those historians who have the interest, the time, and the energy, Twitter can be a useful tool to engage a broad audience. Twitter can also be exhausting, anxiety producing, and generally non-productive.
Well said.
For every legitimate historian in Twitter, with good intentions, there are 10 self-proclaimed historians running the anti-government, pro-secession, Lost Cause Nobility theme straight at them. They come for anyone daring to challenge their narrative.
I’m sorry you interpreted support for what you post as “piling on” and I’m sure I have done so. Having actually changed a mind or two in my efforts, I know that a whole group of knowledgeable people can sometimes make some folks re-think or reconsider what they thought. I don’t know of anything else, except personal experience that has done so. But of course I do not mean the toxic name-calling, insults to intelligence or cruelty many on Twitter enjoyed.
Honestly I miss some of the great folks I followed on Twitter and I continue (as here) to seek them in other forums. But I do not miss Twitter at all.
Hi Sandi,
I am as guilty as the next person in engaging in some of the behavior that I described in the post. I also miss my interactions with any number of people on Twitter, but I haven't once second guessed my decision to leave.
I tend to agree. There are good outlets for history on social media, but Twitter generally isn’t one of them. It’s platform allows for quick interactions, but not much depth in discussion.
That said, I have seen vigorous, intelligent, respectful debates and discussions about 19th Century baseball between MLB Historian John Thorn and Keith Olbermann on Twitter, but they are discussions between friends who are experts in their field on a non-political topic. For interactions like that, Twitter is fine, but that’s an exception.
Perhaps there is a way to leverage twitter in a way that minimizes the negatives, but right now I just don't see it.
Very thoughtful essay - thank you.
Yes.