Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
and Ballot / 24
Public Intellectual:
An Oxymoron? / 3
An Interview with
Gerda Lerner / 7
Newsletter
Volume 34, Number 4 November 2006
H
-Diplos example of technological democracy in
tion of American Historians, the Mississippi
action raises comparisons with a far more well-
Valley Historical Association. The evolution
known tool of the twenty-first century, Wikipe-
Copyright 2006 Organization of American Historians. http://www.oah.org/ All rights reserved. OAH NEWSLETTER November 2006 1
H-NET / From 1
editors and moderators provide guidelines to ensure civil- the brief survey, and anecdotal evidence, do the bulk of editors do their best to provide light through their author-
ity, regulate the list to prevent redundant messages, and diplomatic historians routinely delete or ignore H-Diplo ity over the list. Still, democracy is supposed to rule on the
terminate access for those eventually identified as rogue messages? Why do the usual suspects always seem to Internet. Some contributors detest that democracy is muf-
contributors. This has brought charges that H-Diplo stifles engage in debate? Why arent more scholars involved in fled by moderators; most readers merely become bored by
the very democratic process that lies at the core of Inter- discussion; why does a more diverse group of scholars the rantings. The editors have a truly thankless task. Run-
net communications. Some readers complain about ideo- contribute to the field in print rather than online? In short, ning interference is appreciated by many readers, but in the
logically driven gate-keeping that represses open inquiry, why isnt the list more relevant to the field? past, the quarrels became so tedious that a large segment
but it is impossible to verify such complaints with any ac- One answer lies in H-Diplos very strength and mission: of scholars simply threw up their hands in frustration and
curacy, especially as such grievances are common in the promoting democratic access for all within a moderated quit the list altogether. They have not been won back, and
academy. My brief survey of H-Diplo members (of which forum. Because free speech can be chaotic even under the that is a setback for H-Diplo as well as the field of diplo-
just a handful responded) turned up grumbling across the best of circumstances, this very openness undermines the matic history itself.
political spectrum (though more from the Left). In deter- forum and hurts H-Diplos reputation. That is a downside Openness creates another problem: list members are
mining content from the top down, the editors also work of democracy; endless chatter. Yet those who ply the trade free to begin a thread on any topic they so choose. That is
closely with other scholarly journals (such as Diplomatic of scholarship presumably diverge from the Wikipedians, a strength in Wikipedian terms of transparency, and, pre-
History, the journal of record for the field) to present fo- whose purpose is to disseminate knowledge. H-Diplo con- sumably, in promoting breadth of topics. Yet it is a weak-
rums on articles, and they have their own excellent list of tributors hold to high standards of scholarly debate that we ness when it comes to maintaining the interest of scholars,
book review roundtables. But the core of H-Diplo, just like find at conferences and in journals. H-Net forums were de- and primarily the historical profession which is, presum-
Wikipedia, remains member driven. Subscribers oer top- signed with scholars in mind. Yet in the past, many postings ably, H-Diplos main target audience. It is not that so many
ics on whatever suits their fancy. Free expression, however resulted in turf wars and endless one-upsmanship, and less discussions relate to contemporary events, but that there is
moderated by the editors, is in evidence, but a question scholarship. And that is why the Speakers Corner format little history, or historically- or archive-based explanation,
arises as to how positive the consequences are. turned o a large segment of serious readers whose reaction given to these forums. While the critics castigate their ide-
Surely, there is much that is good within the messages to a thread was to tap the delete button rather than ponder, ological opponents and the moderators themselves, most
posted to the list. For starters, there is considerable dis- craft a reply, or take umbrage. The novelty of the Internet subscribers merely lament that history is shunted aside by
cussion whose quality and breadth we might expect and waned, and with it, interest in battling on H-Diplo. contemporary policy debates centering, say, on the Bush
demand from traditional print journals. A quick look at re- Contributors may believe that their postings have the administration (and with few or no citations to sources
cent trac reveals, for instance, that writers on a thread re- eect of either altering scholarly discourse or aecting to support their reasoning). One former editor expressed
garding Hans Morgenthaus Politics Among Nations (1967) popular and political dialogue, but this is a reach. Certain- chagrin that no matter how hard he tried, through solicita-
included Robert Jervis, Robert Kaplan, and other leading ly, we have all clicked on interesting discussions, shutting tion and the like, he could not drum up enough responses
scholarly commentators. Similarly, the H-Diplo sta has down computer operations for the night with a slightly on old diplomatic topics from the nineteenth century or
worked wonders in ensuring that the list deals with the dierent appreciation of history. Forums on World War World War I to keep a thread going. The lions share of at-
most germane scholarship and also allows for spirited (al- II, the Cold War, and the atomic bombings have wrestled tention went to the here and now, with the Second World
beit sometimes ranting) debate over contemporary events. with interpretations, although they have revealed little by War usually considered the ancient past. Discussion of
Professors reportedly assign these discussions to their stu- way of new information and oftentimes splinter into argu- Clinton- and Bush-era foreign policy has become hege-
dents in order to stimulate classroom discussion, while ments over the most minute details until the moderators monic on the list. It does seem clear that policy wonks and
many nonscholars tap H-Diplo for analysis of the days mercifully sever the threads. Still, H-Diplo has served even bloggers have overwhelmed the historians. For now, de-
diplomatic events. In some senses, such as global acces- the famous. In one instance, the list posted a submission mocracy has rendered historyunless, of course, it is used
sibility and pervasiveness, H-Diplo does a better job than by General Anthony Zinni who voiced his opposition to to make a point about current aairsa tough sell.
print journals of reaching readers throughout the world. It the invasion of Iraq. The course of the national debate, of H-Diplo, like any element of the democratic process,
does a better job of internationalizing the production and course, did not change, but Zinni drew attention to his is a work in progress. Most subscribers would agree, how-
consumption of history writing, though the list remains views. Rigorous scholarship and eective criticism are ever, that an eort should be made to address H-Diplos
largely American centered despite hard to come by on H-Diplo. original intended purpose: a discussion of international
the vision of the editors to broaden A part of the problem is the aairs and diplomacy in a historical context that schol-
the geographic scope. H-Diplo has
also been invaluable in fostering
oahtachau
TEACHER OF THE YEAR AWARD
inherent uneasiness, within an aca-
demic community which stresses
ars find relevant, useful, and engaging. Perhaps the edi-
tors can simply take an even more high-brow approach,
communication between scholars skepticism and even a fair amount insisting on the study and discussion of historical topics
who wish to create panels at confer- of downright orneriness, of edito- while providing a chat room on the side for current events.
ences, or by announcing such con- Now Accepting Nominations for 2007 rial oversight, especially over the They may devise an even sterner vetting process, as print
ferences in the first place. Research- democratic channels of the Inter- journals do now, of discussions (and certainly of book and
ers have found answers to their net. Any H-Diplo editor, or reader, article reviews) that deal not only with civility but with
queries about archive rules, travel, This award recognizes the contributions for that matter, will be aware of a content. This would be a healthy signal to readers of the
and the like, and the intimacy of made by precollegiate classroom teachers to myriad of conflicts over wording, elevated standards of H-Diplo from the Wikipedia model,
this advice makes it often far more improve history education. The award, to be content, and intentions between as well as serve notice that a thread is important and worth
valuable than what libraries oer given for activities which enhance the intel- moderators and authors of submis- reading. The entire community of foreign and international
visitors. Scholars feel less isolated, lectual development of other history teachers sions. While the editor-in-chief of relations scholars and commentators should also engage in
despite their geographical location, and/or students, memorializes the career of Diplomatic History has the last word a discussion oine, perhaps at a meeting of the Society for
because of contact through the list. Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau for her pathbreaking in such battles, it is harder for H- Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) or the
Thus, H-Diplo serves as a forum for efforts to build bridges between university Diplo editors to justify restrictions OAH, about the reforms needed to bring diplomatic his-
both academics and the layperson; and K12 history educators. The winner other than insist on adherence to torians back into the H-Diplo fold. Such a panel could be
it provides communication for a receives $1,000, a one-year OAH member- Roberts Rules of Order. They do so, organized by the journal Diplomatic History to give it added
diverse community of people inter- ship, a one-year subscription to the OAH but at the peril of alienating those seriousness. These, and other remedies, might regain the
ested in diplomacy. It is, like Wiki- Magazine of History, and a certicate for the who might otherwise participate in trust and scholarly purpose of H-Diplo in the halls of aca-
pedia, a modern community in its teachers school. Applications for the 2007 vigorous debate. demia, while maintaining the essential freedom and open-
own sense, with rules, norms, and award must be received by December 1, 2006. After all, the Internet is all ness that makes Internet scholarship so invaluable. T
a sense of common identityall via about open access, but therein lies
the Internet and among members a paradox. A Speakers Corner, by Thomas Zeiler, professor of history at the University of Colorado,
who might never meet face-to-face definition, means less oversight yet is executive editor of Diplomatic History and is a member of the
For more information and to apply,
in their lifetime. also less sustained interest to what advisory board of H-Diplo, an H-Net discussion list dedicated to
visit: <www.oah.org/activities/awards>
Given all these positives, why is being said. Along with the heat the study of diplomatic and international history at <http://www.
then, according to my experience, generated by discussion, H-Diplo h-net.org/~diplo/>.
10 OAH NEWSLETTER November 2006 Copyright 2006 Organization of American Historians. http://www.oah.org/ All rights reserved.