Subtweet of the day (that will soon not be a subtweet but I do need to actually read for substance before I start calling people out). Historians: images are sources with histories of their own. Yes, use them. But properly contextualize (and cite) them! Work with art historians!

One of my most-liked tweets was about just this. If that's my job, if that becomes my career, I'll gladly embrace it and will go around saying this every couple of months to my fellow historians: stop trying to reinvent the wheel! Work with people who have long studied images!

But I really want to stress this, especially in our internet age today: you can't just pull a random image from somewhere. And even if you do go to a good source, with all best intentions, it's *your* responsibility to assess the image and information about it. E.g., who owns it?

Or, perhaps, what's the image about? Even better, ask yourself: am I actually discussing the image, in a fully contextualized way? If not, *don't use the image!* Images are not illustrations. They need to be discussed, analyzed, and explained. You can't just plop them down.

For example, if you're sharing information about, oh, I don't know, the field of Native American and Indigenous Studies, and how that intersects with the field of history today and questions about decolonization, be really careful about any images you use as part of that.

First of all, if an image isn't being discussed in the content, *don't include it!* As I said in the first tweet, I need to delve into the specifics here; maybe it is discussed or maybe someone discusses it in their work elsewhere (I can't remember though I'll check his book).

The image seems to come from (the website of) an Indigenous museum. Great! But again, did you asses that image? Was it made for the museum (or do they own it)? How do they understand it? Is your use of the image the same as the museum's?