"My conclusion is that you are splitting hairs over what defines the word "historian". You seem to be arguing that unless someone is a "trained historian" their works are invalid. I guess somebody should have told us about this sooner. That way we could really cut down on the volume of books being printed. Take for example, Winston Churchill. He was not a "trained historian". Therefore we have to exclude his four volume A History of the English-Speaking Peoples."

I'm not splitting hairs, but trying to establish a standard. Many people provide first aid, help others, and/or treat injuries and sickness. They are not all doctors. Many people work on engines, design home mechanical devices, or otherwise demonstrate some sort of techincal know-how. They are not all trained engineers. Many people read history books, do some research at the library, and even publish articles or books about historical subjects. They are not all trained historians.

The Kennedy brothers do not work at the same level, with the same training, or under the same standards as academic historians or others with an advanced historical education. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with the person, for there are many historical books and articles I think are very useful, that are written by non-historians---including Churchill.

When I talk about what "historians" do, I refer to general trends among trained people in the field. If Joe Blow off the street writes some trash history and gets a local press to publish it, he does not represent the larger historical field.

I think all people can appreciate and understand this, whatever their line of work. Imagine spending years of your life in school or on the job learning the ins-and-outs of how it is done, only to have a guy off the street with a chip on his shoulder try to portray himself as an equal voice in the profession.

The Kennedy brothers are not historians, but advocates of heroic Southern imagery. They have made their name by portraying the South as "right" in the Civil War, and there is a large audience of non-historians very willing and eager to buy their books. I consider it an insult to call the Kennedy brothers equal to those historians who have put the time and money into advancing their education and formally pursuing history as a profession.

This doesn't mean that the Kennedy's are bad guys. They just aren't serious historians.

I wonder if the Kennedy's have tried to pursue advanced degrees in history. If they are serious about "true" history, I would think they would try to advance their education. If I wanted to become a medical professional, I would probably follow in the Kennedy's footsteps and pursue degrees in health management.