[Attention] When Citing My Articles, Please Do So Precisely: On the Definition of the Word “Historian”
2024.07.29
Ubisoft has released a statement emphasizing the fictional nature of Assassin’s Creed Shadows. While some critics remain, I personally want to thank Ubisoft for drawing attention to Thomas Lockley’s historical fabrications.
If they didn’t change the content, the issue of this historical falsification will be discussed for generations.
It’s funny that Ubisoft created a game where Japanese people bow to Yasuke, likely influenced by Lockley’s claim that Yasuke was revered as the god Daikokuten. It’s unfortunate that Yasuke has become a symbol of historical fabrication.
I translated Lockley’s differing explanations in Japanese and English into English so that foreigners could understand. If my blog article helped Ubisoft realize Lockley’s fabrications, I am somewhat pleased.
Originally, my blog was small and unnoticed. However, thanks to Japanese YouTubers who featured my post, it seems to have reached an international audience.
The エディタ(Editor)-san and プク太(Pukuta)-san, who covered my blog post, both run channels introducing international news in Japanese. I am grateful to everyone who helped spread the word although I haven’t seen all of them.
I was simply pursuing the historical facts, but not everyone is pleased with my blog articles. Just two days ago, a foreign YouTuber named Metatron featured my blog post, but he was criticizing.
Because of his imprecise citation, some people might misunderstand my points, so I will correct his errors here. I wish he had verified the definition before criticizing me.
Here is the Cambridge Dictionary definition. He seems to think “historian” simply means a scholar with a degree in history.
However, if that were the case, the term “amateur historian” could not exist. Since Lockley researches and writes about history, there is no problem calling him a “historian”. In fact, he is referred to as a “historian” in the following interview:
Tell us a bit about your background as an historian (education or otherwise). What edge do you think it gives you as an author and as an historian?
My actual academic specialty is language educational methodology, specifically Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). I found that my students responded unbelievably well to historical content, and started working on historical research to provide that. More than a decade later, I find that history has taken over, and although I still both guide language teachers through professional development and initial teacher education, my undergraduate classes are almost entirely history. The fact that I come from another specialty, social science, and trained in a different way from a traditional historian seems to work well.
Not only that, but in the following interview, Lockley refers to himself as a “historian” before calling himself a “language teacher”. Metatron could be an angel with the divine authority to judge whether Lockley qualifies as a historian.
I work for a university called Nihon University in Tokyo. And my job is historian, researcher, and also a language teacher.
Metatron should reveal to him via email, saying, “You are not a historian”.
My Request for a Correction to Metatron: Ignored
Throughout his video, he criticized those who criticize Lockley, giving the impression that my article was imprecise and unreliable. I disliked this misunderstanding, so I commented on YouTube, but he ignored:
Thank you for citing my article. However, I would appreciate it if you could do so accurately. I already mentioned his original specialization in linguistics in an article over a month earlier.
Is a “historian” defined as someone who holds a degree in history? If so, does that mean the term “amateur historian” is incorrect in English?
In any case, I appreciate your effort to view this situation fairly.
The definition of “historian” is broader than you might think. It does not solely refer to someone with a degree in history. Over a month earlier, I already pointed out that his specialization was in linguistics. Please correct your imprecise citation promptly to avoid any misunderstandings.
I apologize for commenting again, but I believe my previous comment may have been overlooked.
While he responded to other comments, he did not reply to mine, so I reached out on X. This led to his long rebuttal:
Even though your overall analysis of Lockley's work was well put together @japanese_naoto, languages are my field. I don't mean to be disrespectful but since you "called me out" then I would like to reply to you as a linguist.
Even though your overall analysis of Lockley’s work was well put together @japanese_naoto, languages are my field. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but since you “called me out” then I would like to reply to you as a linguist.
I believe I should correct you on your inappropriate and wrong definition of the word historian. I only do this because you publicly stated my statement was imprecise. It was not.
First you are only using one dictionary definition to define what “historian” means. This is indicative of your intent of defending your position. However no professional linguist would ever do that, because that’s cherry picking. You must show several dictionaries and their definition, not just the one that appears to support your usage of the word. Emphasis on appears. That’s selective bias right there and it’s unprofessional.
As you have conveniently left out, there are plenty of dictionary definitions that underline the notion that to be considered a historian you should also be regarded as an expert (see http://Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com and Google Dictionary) or as other definition propose an authority in history (see http://vocabulary.com but also Wikipedia). Lockley is neither, hence to me he is no historian.
By the loose interpretation of the definition you chose, anyone who writes a book, a paper, an essay about history or a 5 pages blog would automatically become a historian regardless of any qualification. That’s ridiculous.
Moreover, the simple fact that studying history is indeed a factor within the definition proper, doesn’t mean that anyone who studies history for say 15 minutes becomes a historian. Clearly the studying element must be contextualized in a broader frame.
In other words if merely studying history makes you a historian, then all first year students of history become historians on day one. High schoolers or elementary students are all historians by your definition. That’s nonsense. Not trying to build a strawman, just using the word as defined by you.
I think we can all agree that your simplified and incorrect definition would make the word historian useless. Hence I agree with the Collins definition which I reported hereby, and consider the word historian to mean an expert in history or an author or academic whose curriculum, background and or published works justify him being considered an authority on the matter. That or an established usually ancient Chronicler.
Furthermore your mention of the idea of an amateur historian is irrelevant to the original definition of historian and the subject matter at hand. Thomas Lockley is not a historian hence my statement on my video was not imprecise.
He is the one cherry-picking definitions. Why choose only the narrower definition when there is a broader one?
Thomas Lockley has been “researching” Yasuke for a decade and has published several books.
No one else has researched Yasuke as extensively as Lockley, actually making him considered to be an “authority” on the matter.
By his logic, if authority is the criterion, then Lockley is indeed a “historian”.
Why Does Metatron Call Himself a “Linguist”? Double Standards
His logic has other flaws. He calls himself a “linguist”. Has he researched languages for over a decade, written more academic papers, published more books, and been recognized as an authority more than Lockley?
It’s clear that the term “linguist” does not exclusively refer to authoritative language scholars. So why does he use the broad definition for “linguist” but insist on the narrow definition for “historian”? It’s nothing but cherry-picking.
The Japanese Terms for “Historian”: Clear Distinction
In Japanese, by the way, we have distinct terms for “historian” and “scholar of history”, making it easier to differentiate:
歴史家 (rekishika) – historian
歴史学者 (rekishigakusha) – scholar of history
On a Japanese website, he is referred to as “歴史家” (historian):
１９７８年、イギリス生。歴史家、英語教育者、日本大学法学部准教授。
Translation: Born in 1978 in the UK, historian, English educator, and associate professor at Nihon University’s Faculty of Law.
On more informal sites, unfortunately, he is now referred to as “歴史修正主義者“ (historical revisionist).
Conclusion: Question Your Assumptions Before Criticizing
Before criticizing, he should have checked the dictionary. Watching his video, it’s evident he wants to defend Thomas Lockley. He likely cited my article reflexively, without understanding the meaning of the words, due to a bias that the critics’ statements were wrong.
However, as I mentioned in another article, I also do not believe Lockley fabricate history with pure malice. I speculated that he acted as a good deed, even though he is perceived as a villain.
It’s also common to find that what you thought was someone else’s mistake is actually your own misunderstanding.
In any case, Lockley abused his authority as an associate professor and engaged in fabricating history through intellectual dishonesty, which violates research ethics. His actions are inexcusable.
Why is it that I, who criticize Lockley, recognize him as a historian, while Metatron, who defends him, does not?
Naoto
It’s kind of funny
Thank you for reading. In my next article, I will explore the issues in the study of history, discussing “the meaning of words,” “prejudices,” and “the unreliability of Japanese historical academia.”
