Heather Cox Richardson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC has made herself very rich plying the fears and paranoia of the older liberal left boomer generation. I give her kudos for that.

When we are obviously not in a dictatorship three months from now, will she apologize, say she made a mistake and move on? Suspect not. After all she claimed the Kirk shooter was far right and never apologized.

She is incredibly selective in her historical analysis. But what the hey, she makes tons of money from gullible liberal women.

I do NOT give her kudos for that.

When I first started reading HCR around 2020, she was a well-respected history professor with a way with words. Her historical analysis were interesting and beautifully written. I looked forward to it every day.

But in the last couple of years, since Trump and the 2024 election period, I guess, she has totally gone off the deep end. She doesn't even pretend to be factual and non-biased, and, as a PP pointed out, she has a very narrow definition of what makes her news columns each day. No question that her audience is upper middle class white women from the suburbs who vote straight blue, no matter who. And, judging from the comments on many of her pieces, a high number of 70+ hand wringers who miss the days of burning bras in the '60s. It's sad, actually.

What are some of the things you think she has gotten wrong? Asking sincerely.

NP. I agree with this poster that HCR is becoming insufferable. It’s not so much that her writing is “wrong,” as it’s just her opinion and point of view. But her TDS and horrible progressive bias is significantly affecting the quality of her work. Where is her outrage over the billions of dollars stolen in Minnesota, as one example?

Because it's alleged. It was created by a shock-jock youtuber,, not a serioius journalist. I believe nothing from this administration. There is nothing for her to report as a historian. Maybe you should raise your standards of mediocre white men to those old hag white women you despise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like HCR but she is a historian, not expert in authoritarianism. Better to little to Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Timothy Snyder. HCR is increasing out of her lane as she’s become more popular. Remember when she weighed in when Schumer caved on the shutdown?

If she is such a terrific historian, why doesn't she draw the parallels between Maduro's arrest and that of Noriega? Very similar circumstances, charges, and strategies.

Instead of opining and making dramatic predictions, perhaps she can look back in history - you know, like a historian does.

History shows that Noriega declared war on the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Of course this woman is single. That's actually an important point.”

It’s so cute that today’s MAGA thinks that having a man is some kind of accomplishment.

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

It's not a question of accomplishment. But being single versus married certainly affects a person's perspective, priorities, and concerns/risks.

I couldn't care less about being married at all, but marriage and commitment absolutely changes people. If you don't think so, you're not being honest. And we see these differences in voting patterns and policy differences.

I’m married but women do not need to be to entitled to an opinion or respect. I don’t see that unmarried people don’t care about the future of the country. This new push toward marriage is because our culture has made being single unaffordable. The cost of housing etc. is unaffordable for single people. By the way, HCR frequently mentions her husband so stop with the crazy single woman drivel.

Funny they never wonder about the marriage status of the men. I will keep saying it, posters like the PP are driving young women left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Of course this woman is single. That's actually an important point.”

It’s so cute that today’s MAGA thinks that having a man is some kind of accomplishment.

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

It's not a question of accomplishment. But being single versus married certainly affects a person's perspective, priorities, and concerns/risks.

I couldn't care less about being married at all, but marriage and commitment absolutely changes people. If you don't think so, you're not being honest. And we see these differences in voting patterns and policy differences.

I’m married but women do not need to be to entitled to an opinion or respect. I don’t see that unmarried people don’t care about the future of the country. This new push toward marriage is because our culture has made being single unaffordable. The cost of housing etc. is unaffordable for single people. By the way, HCR frequently mentions her husband so stop with the crazy single woman drivel.

HCR is married to a blue collar guy (a lobster fisherman) and has three kids. But why is that relevant to anything?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC has made herself very rich plying the fears and paranoia of the older liberal left boomer generation. I give her kudos for that.

When we are obviously not in a dictatorship three months from now, will she apologize, say she made a mistake and move on? Suspect not. After all she claimed the Kirk shooter was far right and never apologized.

She is incredibly selective in her historical analysis. But what the hey, she makes tons of money from gullible liberal women.

Cute that you think historians are rich.

That’s the whole point. She’s no longer an historian. She’s sold out and made herself into a content creator. And yes she’s making plenty of money from bored, middle aged white women who carry guilt wherever they go.

She’s still history faculty at Boston College. Sorry, you should google before spouting off. Ya know, do your own research!

https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/morrissey/departments/history/people.html

PP was saying that HCR isn't doing scholarship, dummy

Substack is not a peer reviewed journal so no sh*t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The seer of white, middle aged, UMC liberal women has spoken.

She actually isn't liberal. She's a historian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC has made herself very rich plying the fears and paranoia of the older liberal left boomer generation. I give her kudos for that.

When we are obviously not in a dictatorship three months from now, will she apologize, say she made a mistake and move on? Suspect not. After all she claimed the Kirk shooter was far right and never apologized.

She is incredibly selective in her historical analysis. But what the hey, she makes tons of money from gullible liberal women.

Cute that you think historians are rich.

That’s the whole point. She’s no longer an historian. She’s sold out and made herself into a content creator. And yes she’s making plenty of money from bored, middle aged white women who carry guilt wherever they go.

She’s still history faculty at Boston College. Sorry, you should google before spouting off. Ya know, do your own research!

https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/morrissey/departments/history/people.html

I'm referring to her daily column. It's no longer the work of an "historian," although she does maintain the faculty position. Her real source of income and acclaim now is her social media position.

I’m not sure she claims that her Substack is historical. Historians deal with the past and primary documents. There is a process to doing history. She seems to discuss current affairs with a nod to history. I think you don’t read/watch enough of her to make your claims. Your argument is silly. I say this as someone who has done graduate work in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC has made herself very rich plying the fears and paranoia of the older liberal left boomer generation. I give her kudos for that.

When we are obviously not in a dictatorship three months from now, will she apologize, say she made a mistake and move on? Suspect not. After all she claimed the Kirk shooter was far right and never apologized.

She is incredibly selective in her historical analysis. But what the hey, she makes tons of money from gullible liberal women.

I do NOT give her kudos for that.

When I first started reading HCR around 2020, she was a well-respected history professor with a way with words. Her historical analysis were interesting and beautifully written. I looked forward to it every day.

But in the last couple of years, since Trump and the 2024 election period, I guess, she has totally gone off the deep end. She doesn't even pretend to be factual and non-biased, and, as a PP pointed out, she has a very narrow definition of what makes her news columns each day. No question that her audience is upper middle class white women from the suburbs who vote straight blue, no matter who. And, judging from the comments on many of her pieces, a high number of 70+ hand wringers who miss the days of burning bras in the '60s. It's sad, actually.

What are some of the things you think she has gotten wrong? Asking sincerely.

NP. I agree with this poster that HCR is becoming insufferable. It’s not so much that her writing is “wrong,” as it’s just her opinion and point of view. But her TDS and horrible progressive bias is significantly affecting the quality of her work. Where is her outrage over the billions of dollars stolen in Minnesota, as one example?

She isn’t your cup of tea. You probably enjoy Candace Owens.

[Anonymous]

I have only heard of HCR on DCUM but it seems like people are outsourcing their critical thinking to her. It's not like she's a prophet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seer of white, middle aged, UMC liberal women has spoken.

She actually isn't liberal. She's a historian.

Academics are well known for their balanced approach to political issues.

[Anonymous]

Me, a Latina woman who reads her stuff and agrees with a lot of it, laughing at all the MAGAs who assume it’s just old white women tuning in. Americans are in such denial. If you were to describe what the Trump administration has done/is doing in a place other than the US, there wouldn’t be so much back and forth about whether it’s authoritarianism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seer of white, middle aged, UMC liberal women has spoken.

I’m neither white nor middle aged. Suggest some alternative “seers” . Go for it! You can do it! I’ll even check back in a bit.

.


Keep driving young women to vote left with how you talk. Blue wave of the future, young women statistically moving left far more then men move right. Keep it up!

So, you’re not able to suggest any alternatives at all. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seer of white, middle aged, UMC liberal women has spoken.

I’m neither white nor middle aged. Suggest some alternative “seers” . Go for it! You can do it! I’ll even check back in a bit.

.


Keep driving young women to vote left with how you talk. Blue wave of the future, young women statistically moving left far more then men move right. Keep it up!

So, you’re not able to suggest any alternatives at all. Got it.

Alternatives to what? You can try disagreeing with a woman without attacking her for being a woman. The right has constantly complained about derision toward white men pushing young men to the right, and I agree with that somewhat. We have a whole separate thread about it. However the right is far worse with derision toward women in general, specifically white women. So if you wonder why young women have statistically, dramatically politically moved to the left (far more than men have actually moved to the right) maybe consider the way you talk and realize it's repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she have any thought on the legality of Obama droning US citizens? Nah.

Was Obama ever accused of violating the Constitution? Such ignorance on your part.

NP. Let's not revise history just because we dislike Trump. Obama's deliberate killing of known American citizens with drones was absolutely called out as a violation of the Constitution both at the time and after.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years-after-the-al-awlaki-killing-a-reckoning-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/

Shame on people like you for trying to memory hole this crazy violation that actually exceeds anything Trump has done to date.

Trump unconstitutionally turned the whole federal government upside down, including disappearing ad doing who knows what to American citizens on American territory!

Does that change the unconstitutionality, lawlessness, and extremism of Obama's extrajudicial executions of American citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The seer of white, middle aged, UMC liberal women has spoken.

She actually isn't liberal. She's a historian.

Academics are well known for their balanced approach to political issues.

You haven’t spent a lot of time with academics. Their political leanings run the spectrum. My advisor was MAGA. Engineering and science profs tend to be conservative. Please stop stereotyping.