Kind of a scathing review of "The History Manifesto" on HNN. I hadn't realized that much of the supposed crisis that the authors were alleging existed might not even be true. I thought the reviewer's concluding note, that we should just be happy that controversy was created, was a bit silly. (What controversy could that not be applied to?) I have posted my thoughts on the THM before on here — I am just dead tired of academic "manifestos" and if people want to do longue dureé history, more power to them, but there is a reason that people stopped doing it originally. The best way to compel scholars to shift their work focus is to give them a good example of how powerful another approach can be, not writing a chiding manifesto, in my view. It is easy to be a critic, and much harder to make something actually useful.