About Eminent Historians
When you're labeled an Eminent Historian, you get a free pass. Your claims don't need the same burden of proof that others require. Say something with enough confidence, and your reputation does the heavy lifting.
"Trust me, I'm an Eminent Historian" becomes both the claim and the evidence.
This creates an authority loop that can't be penetrated. I'm right because I'm the Eminent Historian. And I'm the Eminent Historian because I'm right.
When pushed for proof, many Eminent Historians deploy the critic-as-enemy tactic. They don't address the question—they question the questioner.
"Why are you so biased against my work?"
Now the spotlight shifts. We're no longer discussing evidence. We're discussing motives.
Then comes the complexity shield.
"It's too complicated to explain to non-experts." Says the Eminent Historian. Translation: I don't need to justify my thinking to you.
But the question remains: Are the Eminent Historians experts because they're right, or are they right because they're experts?