In this assumption you would be incorrect. Though amateur historians do contribute to the overall base of knowledge that is the field of History, these amateurs do not portray themselves as "historians" and "experts". You will find very few, or no, post-graduate students of history that bestow upon themselves the title of "historian" or assume the title of "expert". This is horribly pompous even among working professionals. Among amateurs it would be considered narcissistic and readily dismissed.

I am willing to review Hawkins' book on publication and will of course submit links or copies to any subsequently published article. I am willing to keep an open mind as to his scholarship. But he should also be aware that making negative comments about education, and even placing himself above the need for education, should draw criticism. He is not immune to the same process that traditionally creates historical scholars. He is not a special case.

As I wrote at RDnet, if he desires to be a scholar of history, then he needs to enroll in a university immediately. This is the process of authentication required of everyone in the field. It is not optional.

(I see that now I have joined the site I can post without preview.)