In our reply to Margaret Thomas's article “Programmaticahistoricity in second language acquisition theory,” we first review pertinent literature,concluding that historical awareness is evident in SLA, though it is not as far-reaching asThomas would like it to be. We then argue that the attitude of most scholars in SLA toward thepast is reasonable given that no significant work in SLA from antiquity has beendiscovered—by Thomas or anyone else—and that if such work exists Thomas hasthe burden to bring it to light before declaring the field guilty of ahistoricity. We consider variousways to define the field of SLA, arguing that it should be defined theoretically first, andhistorically second. We claim that the point at which SLA separated itself from languageteaching is a logical point from which to date the beginnings of SLA as a true discipline. Weconsider and reject Thomas's comparison of SLA and its history to various other scientificdisciplines and their histories, arguing that these disciplines have true milestones to point to inthe distant past, whereas SLA does not. Although we agree with Thomas that a generalawareness of the history of philosophy and science is beneficial for scholars in all fields, wemake a sharp division between that history and the history of SLA proper. We conclude byarguing that respect for the field of SLA can come only through sound scientific progress, not byappeals to history.