5 ms·

Lapham's is a great publication. Especially for anyone who loves history (through the words of those living it, without the benefit of hindsight). Though, you

Lapham's is a great publication. Especially for anyone who loves history (through the words of those living it, without the benefit of hindsight). Though, you definitely have to love reading also to make it worth your while. Some of it can get pretty dense. I usually end up reading only 2 or 3 of the articles but still get a lot out of it.

gruseom 15y ago
The emphasis on history is really the killer feature. I almost posted this a few days ago because I love how they frame older documents in modern contexts: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/question-and-answer.php http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/question-and-... I didn't, in the end, because I decided it would lead to a useless discussion about how stupid Gandhi was. On a tangential note, wouldn't it be great if there were a news network (say like NPR, the good parts) whose focus was to include history in everything? For example, when covering the Libyan war, also cover the colonial history, previous wars fought there (http://www.google.ca/#ssource=hp&q=%22benghazi+stakes%22 http://www.google.ca/#ssource=hp&q=%22benghazi+stakes%22) - really anything related would do. We could better understand what's going on, learn things of substance, and the material wouldn't have to be the same old recycled talking points bullshit, because you'd have all of history to draw on. (It needn't just be history, either; that's just where the most ready material would be.) Rather than interviewing bobbleheads for their opinions, interview scholars for their learning. I bet you could get some pretty good historians to go on for cheap.
- maxprogram 15y ago
  Completely agree. I'd personally love something like that. But then again, I'd think it would be a very VERY niche product. I have trouble enough convincing people I know to watch an episode of Charlie Rose.

gruseom 15y ago

The emphasis on history is really the killer feature. I almost posted this a few days ago because I love how they frame older documents in modern contexts: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/question-and-answer.php http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/voices-in-time/question-and-... I didn't, in the end, because I decided it would lead to a useless discussion about how stupid Gandhi was. On a tangential note, wouldn't it be great if there were a news network (say like NPR, the good parts) whose focus was to include history in everything? For example, when covering the Libyan war, also cover the colonial history, previous wars fought there (http://www.google.ca/#ssource=hp&q=%22benghazi+stakes%22 http://www.google.ca/#ssource=hp&q=%22benghazi+stakes%22) - really anything related would do. We could better understand what's going on, learn things of substance, and the material wouldn't have to be the same old recycled talking points bullshit, because you'd have all of history to draw on. (It needn't just be history, either; that's just where the most ready material would be.) Rather than interviewing bobbleheads for their opinions, interview scholars for their learning. I bet you could get some pretty good historians to go on for cheap.

maxprogram 15y ago
Completely agree. I'd personally love something like that. But then again, I'd think it would be a very VERY niche product. I have trouble enough convincing people I know to watch an episode of Charlie Rose.