What We’re Reading: January 9, 2014
Today’s What We’re Reading features thoughts on how film can make a historian’s work better, a summary of the “relevance of history” forum, the Redskins controversy reemerges from an unlikely source, LOL my Thesis, and much more!
The Practice of History
At Hatful of History, some thoughts on what historians can learn from film. Our Masters at the Movies series in Perspectives (most recent installment here), makes a convincing case along the same lines.
At Planned Obsolescence: “ideas keep moving, keep developing, even after you’ve locked them down in print or pixels.” A great post, which reminds us of James Oakes, “On Changing My Mind.”
Max A. Van Balgooy’s summary of the National Council on Public History (NCPH) history forum where more than 60 public historians, already at the AHA annual meeting or from the DC area, sharpened how they talk about the significance of their work. (The next forum will be at the NCPH in Monterey.)
Terry Brock discusses how a community is dealing with the impact of development on the legacy of a historically significant neighborhood, and the importance and likelihood of pre-development archaeological excavation.
History in the News
A trademark application was rejected based on the use of the word “Redskins” in the name, reigniting the debate over the use of it by the Washington Redskins football team.
The manuscript, dating back to 1858, was acquired by the library in 2009 and titled “The Life and Adventures of a Haunted Convict.”
Fun and Off-Beat
“Summing up years of work in one sentence.”
Some history related, and some not.
This post first appeared on AHA Today.
Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.