As a historian who has had to devote rather too much verbiage to contesting Jeffreyian claims (time and energy that I could have used more productively), I wouldn't count her as a historian and have been irritated over the years by people considering her polemics to be 'history' and disseminating her contentions onwards on that basis.
She's selective and onesided (omitting any evidence, however blatant, that might contradict her case) and assumes that people, movements and positions were always absolutely frozen in time at the point of whatever statements she's citing, not to mention proceeding by assertion rather than documentation. It's the kind of 'history' that cherrypicks materials for supporting evidence, rather than looking at a larger picture.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:34 pm (UTC)She's selective and onesided (omitting any evidence, however blatant, that might contradict her case) and assumes that people, movements and positions were always absolutely frozen in time at the point of whatever statements she's citing, not to mention proceeding by assertion rather than documentation. It's the kind of 'history' that cherrypicks materials for supporting evidence, rather than looking at a larger picture.