Customer Reviews:
 Anatol Lieven review February 29, 2004
herb patchell (boston ma)
20 out of 52 found this review helpful
Lieven's article, "In the Mirror of Europe: The Perils of American Nationalism";is succinct, cogent, and in my opinion frighteningly accurate. My experience as a professor convinces me that we are in the midst of a nationalistic arrogance, whipped by endlessly reptetiive mantras including 9/11, war on terrorism and god, which the majority of my students now accept as truth. I have one suggestion, I think Mr. Lieven is overly optimistic when he comments that the neoconservative empire-builders are not yet the majority in positions of power. I feel their reach inlcudes the legislative and executive branch, much of the leadership of coporate America, an increasing number of Jewish and Christian denominations, much of the media-particularly AM talk radio, higher education, the military, and with another four years of the current administration, federal courts at all levels. I will bring up this article in many of my discussion groups. I think the article was well-written and important, my congratulations to the author.
 Rival to Foreign Affairs and just as good February 20, 2008
Igor Faynshteyn (Brooklyn, NY United States)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Current History is a journal on foreign affairs and international policy. Like Foreign Affairs journal, which is considered the establishment and a leading publication on foreign affairs, Current History is objective, balanced and non-partisan. It covers foreign affairs in a very scholarly and serious way. Each article's analysis is nuanced, realistic and doesn't jump to premature conclusions.
Pros:
- No advertisements within articles
- The style of writing is accessible to generally educated audience, is very forward and clear. Format is standard.
- Articles are of reasonable length (shorter than Foreign Affairs)
- A timelined section about international current affairs
Cons:
- Articles generally don't provide sufficient background about the subject written about. It relies on readers' knowledge instead
- Lacks extensive book review section and no letters to the editor section (which provides an interesting forum for discussion usually)
- Each issue concentrates on a region of the world (such as Russia, Latin America, Middle East, etc.) instead of case by case as needed
Overall, despite some of its shortcomings, Current History provides a serious and nuanced look at foreign affairs with disregard to partisanship and deserves the same attention and praise as Foreign Affairs.
I am a subscriber to both Current History and Foreign Affairs and it gives me a diverse perspective on international events. I highly recommend Current History (and Foreign Affairs for that matter) to anyone interested in learning about foreign policy and global affairs in a serious and nuanced way. Perfect for research, reference and substantive understanding of the affairs of the state.
|
