Conor Friedersdorf

@conor64 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked June 10, 2020

Created

Tue Jan 07 01:33:21 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@nhannahjones My piece explicitly quotes two historians talking about why they wouldn't sign the letter, and links my colleague's lengthy piece that focuses on the debate among historians. It does not assert or imply that the critics I note are "representative." — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 7, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@nhannahjones And the last third or more of the article is my own defense of the preeminence of 1776 as the founding on grounds of inclusiveness. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 7, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@nhannahjones What's more, I find it odd to characterize the debate as if critics of widely debated, obviously controversial claims, among historians and the public, are insufficiently representative to warrant focus. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Jan. 7, 2020 Hibernated