- Feb 14, 2010
- Reaction score
- United Kingdom
Robert Tombs is a great historian and has an interesting take on things:
I sometimes ask myself whether I should be feeling more despondent about our present political agitation.www.telegraph.co.uk
You really do post some absolute shite on this debate. Thoughts on his contributions by somebody who really does understand the subject matter forensically....
Robert Tombs, is an emeritus (i.e., retired) professor of French history at the University of Cambridge. His specialism is nineteenth-century France, particularly the Paris Commune. His work, focused on the political culture of the working classes, led him to revise a number of myths associated with the history of the Commune.
Why the Spectator thinks that this should qualify him to write detailed expositions on the UK's trade relations with the EU and the rest of the world, or act as an attack dog on Sir Ivan Rogers, it does not explain.
In strict terms of Tombs's academic qualifications and experience, he is no better equipped for the task set by the Spectator than your average garage mechanic. Certainly, he has no credentials which would support any claim to expertise on his current topic where he grandly reaches down to tell us, "What Sir Ivan Rogers gets wrong about Brexit", and asserts that, "No deal is still the best option for the UK".
Then, this is the game the legacy media plays. Trading on prestige rather than knowledge, for its comment the Spectator goes to the founding co-editor of an obscure propaganda website styled Briefings for Brexit - a site which, incidentally, only gets a tiny fraction of the traffic levels that this blog enjoys.
But readers who might expect Tombs to make up for his lack of expertise with quality of argument, and that he might draw in support unimpeachable primary sources, will be disappointed. This is not how the game is played. Rather, styles are polemical rather than reasoned, while third party sources are used to conceal the thinness of arguments and confer unwarranted legitimacy on unsustainable claims. And, in many instances, no sources are offered.