As a supporter pointed out to me in an email, by creating MHF I run the risk of courting resentment on the part of those who might feel that I am showing them up and/or those who might accuse me of hubris. I learned long ago that you cannot break with the status quo, even a little bit, without attracting criticism. It’s inevitable.
Nevertheless, I’m willing to take the hits because I believe in what I’m doing, or rather what we’re doing, because already a number of people have stepped forward to say they’d like to be part of MHF. They like the idea of being proactive instead of just bewailing our fate.
Still, even with the support of others, I can’t say I’m the kind of person who shrugs off criticism. So as a sort of talisman I designed and ordered a coffee mug with the MHF logo and the slogan, “Charging into the Future of the Field.” I really like how it looks, and in addition to bolstering my morale it helps make the project somehow seem more tangible.
Indeed, I think it’d be a good idea for MHF supporters to be able to purchase coffee mugs like this one — not as a fund-raising device; the proceeds would be ludicrously small — but as a way to publicize the project, start conversations concerning it, and so on.
A third reason to get a bunch of coffee mugs like this would be to have something tangible to give potential donors. I’ll discuss this in more detail later, but generally speaking, donors require a good deal of cultivation before they write a check, and the coffee mug would help keep the MHF in the foreground of their thoughts.
So all in all, the coffee mug in the photo above is not a frivolity. It illustrates one of the tools we’ll need to deploy. To purchase a coffee mug or a number of other products, visit The Military History Foundation Store at CafePress.com
3 Comments
I was wondering, what has been the response from the senior scholars quoted in Miller’s piece? And do you see the MHF evolving into the SHAFT you and Geoffrey Parker proposed a couple years ago?
I’ve heard nothing from any of the senior scholars quoted in Miller’s piece. I wonder how they feel about their involvement in light of the actual article and/or the public response it has brought from people in the OSU military history program, on H-War, or among readers of this blog. My guess — and it’s just a guess — is that one or more of them actually suggested the article idea to Miller, and that others let themselves be quoted without really thinking through the implications of the piece. I can’t imagine that any military historian actually desires for our field to be portrayed as defunct.
As for SHAFT, MHF will certainly support a broader military history, but whether we’ll ever use the actual name, SHAFT, I couldn’t say.
Mark:
Maybe you could write up an article or summary of what you are doing and have it appear on HNN as a way to let folks know about your efforts.
JM