There is, sadly, a vast difference in accuracy between a "state-approved high school textbook" and a "peer-reviewed scholarly publication". A state-approved hi

There is, sadly, a vast difference in accuracy between a "state-approved high school textbook" and a "peer-reviewed scholarly publication". A state-approved high-school textbook is subject to myriad business and political agendas that practically, by definition, compromise its truth and accuracy. A peer-reviewed scholarly publication is supposed to have a chain back to actual sources and facts that anchors it in spite of any agenda or narrative it may propound. The issue here is that Bulstrode presented a bunch of claims with no evidence or even contradicting evidence in the actual sources she cites. There are also some engineering issues: sugar mill rollers are oriented differently from steel mill rollers because they serve very different purposes. The comment from here was good: https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-cort-case https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-cort-case > Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signalled as such, rather than presented as certainty. Especially when that certainty creates a narrative so compelling that it makes major newspaper headlines. Bulstrode’s narrative requires multiple smoking guns to work, none of which are in the evidence she presents.