A few thoughts provoked by @dbessner and Logevall’s article "Recentering the United States in the Historiography of American Foreign Relations" @TXNatSecReview. This isn't a "response" per se. https://tnsr.org/2020/04/recentering-the-united-states-in-the-historiography-of-american-foreign-relations/

Although it appeared in an interdisciplinary journal, I read it as a piece concerned with the profession of History - I mean specifically related to “Departments of History” and graduate study in History Departments (and, especially, the subfield of American foreign relations).

These are perhaps more narrow parameters than some others have read it. But within in those lines, and allowing for my personal preference for a reemphasis on “policymaking and ... power”, I’m pessimistic that such a re-centring can happen in capital-H History.

My pessimism is the result of reflecting on the authors' "important next steps," and my own answers to these questions:

1) If you know History PhDs who studied “policymaking and its relationship to the projection of power,” and graduated in the last five-or-so years, where do they work now? What departments/units have been offering postdocs or hiring historians who study these topics?

2) At what universities will the next generation of History PhDs (who study these topics) be trained?

These aren’t meant to be “gotcha” questions. It is tough to reflect and comment on this piece without without making it personal - either about oneself or about others. Disciplines, after all, are made up of people. But I do wonder if the horse has already left the barn.