0:00

Hello, and welcome to Season Zero

0:02

of the Duncan and Co History Show.

0:04

I'm Mike Duncan. My co-host is Alexis

0:06

Co. And we are two far-flung

0:08

history buddies, and this is our

0:11

wide-ranging archival mix of a show.

0:13

This is actually the final episode of

0:15

Season Zero, our great experiment with an

0:18

emphasis on experiment. And today is

0:20

no exception. The final episode we're

0:22

doing here is on a hypothetical

0:24

question. What would you do for history

0:27

if you won the lottery? Which

0:29

is ironic, because... Alexis hates

0:31

hypothetical questions. I am not

0:33

a fan. But you suggested

0:35

this one. I did suggest this

0:38

one, but it's yes and it's

0:40

a no, because I have an

0:43

aversion to paradoxical time travel scenarios,

0:45

like would you kill baby Hitler?

0:47

But what I proposed is something

0:50

more joyous. It is, I mean,

0:52

more joyous than killing a baby

0:54

dictator, which is essentially future

0:57

focused fan fiction. future-focused

0:59

fan fiction. Future focused

1:01

fan fiction. Okay, so the million-dollar

1:04

question, I mean, maybe literally

1:06

the million-dollar question or the

1:09

billion-dollar question is, what would you do

1:11

for history if you won the lottery? I would

1:13

need the billion. A million would not go

1:15

very far. Right, a million's not going to

1:17

do it these days. No, so I have always

1:19

known what I would do. I would

1:22

found and fund a museum dedicated to

1:24

the history of American history. I would

1:26

ask two questions of equal importance. The

1:28

first is obvious, what happened? And the

1:31

second is, how did we come to believe

1:33

that this is what happened? Yeah, and this

1:35

is this is something we share is

1:37

this love of the history of history

1:40

and how our historical understanding has been

1:42

shaped by historian and historical practices, not

1:44

just what events happened, but how do

1:47

we tell them to ourselves? Yeah, I'm

1:49

still working on a good title for that.

1:51

I think right now I have

1:53

the Museum of the History of

1:55

American History, which is it doesn't

1:58

roll off the tongue, but it

2:00

would essentially do that. It would

2:02

look at how we've constructed and

2:04

reconstructed our historical narratives.

2:07

So we'd look at

2:09

how interpretations of events have

2:11

evolved, how they've been challenged

2:14

over time, and if those

2:16

challenges changed our interpretation of

2:18

events, so how this impacts

2:21

our current understanding of American

2:23

history. So it's a museum for

2:25

sure, but it's also a vibrant

2:28

research center. So it's like a

2:30

think tank in a museum,

2:32

because that is what's most

2:34

important. Good history is rarely

2:37

well funded, if it's, I mean,

2:39

if it's funded at all. Yeah,

2:41

TBD, going forward. Oh my God.

2:43

Yes. So can you give us

2:45

an example of the kind of

2:48

thing you're talking about here? I

2:50

mean, there's a very easy

2:52

example, I think, for Americans.

2:54

They may not know his

2:57

name, but they know his

2:59

story. Parson Weems, the progenitor

3:01

of presidential fan fiction, and

3:03

his fabled cherry tree story,

3:06

Washington could not tell a lie,

3:08

which is a very blatant lie,

3:10

and yet it's a lie that really

3:12

took. And in the beginning, it

3:14

took for a few reasons. Right.

3:16

So I would start the story

3:18

this way, which is that Weems,

3:21

he's not like some rogue

3:23

fabulous. Right. He was the

3:25

vanguard of a nascent. biographical

3:27

tradition, which is totally unencumbered

3:29

by any kind of standard.

3:32

There are no scholarly standards.

3:34

And there won't be for at

3:36

least a hundred years. So the

3:38

work of biography the study of

3:40

history is all relatively recent.

3:42

And the question isn't, I hope,

3:44

whether or not George Washington could

3:47

tell a why, but rather why Americans,

3:49

at that time, needed those myths.

3:51

in the first place. So why

3:53

were we so desperate for this

3:55

founding father figure who could

3:58

have this superhuman honesty? which

4:00

leads me to the second point,

4:02

which is that it's bigger

4:04

than Weems, it's bigger than

4:06

George Washington, it's about this

4:09

relationship between popular

4:11

imagination and history.

4:13

Because you know, you know how

4:15

they always say, history is written

4:18

by the victors, and I'm not

4:20

sure that's true. It's definitely written

4:22

by the first responders who often

4:24

appear to be the victors of

4:27

their era, right, because they have

4:29

the means and the access to

4:31

respond. So imagine if

4:33

Washington's story had been written by

4:35

one of the people he enslaved

4:38

instead of a hagiographic

4:40

pastor who wanted to write a

4:42

book that would sell by his words

4:44

like flax seeds. So how different would

4:47

our like founding mythology look?

4:49

And then that's the third point,

4:51

like who embraced it? So let's

4:53

not forget the audience, a

4:55

fledgling nation, hungry for heroes,

4:57

it craved these kinds of

4:59

heroic stories, and Weems serves them

5:01

up, they devour them. So the museum

5:04

would explore that symbiotic

5:06

relationship between historical

5:08

narratives and national identity.

5:11

And so this is a story

5:13

that starts with Weems, and when is

5:15

Weems writing again, like what was his

5:17

era? the year after Washington died.

5:19

So I think the first volume

5:22

was published, you know, in 1799

5:24

or 1800. Yeah, okay. So this

5:26

is like right around 1800 and

5:29

then tracing this myth and

5:31

other myths that weems kind

5:33

of inserted into the

5:35

historical record and then

5:37

ending what today here

5:39

in in the 21st

5:42

century with you presidential

5:44

biographer of Washington, Alexisco.

5:46

I mean, for right now, yes, I can't

5:48

really point to another Washington biography that

5:50

that would be good to punctuate this story

5:52

on, but I think that that's the whole

5:55

point is I would ensure that wasn't going

5:57

to be the case for very long because

5:59

I would pour this unprecedented amount of

6:01

money into grants for meticulous scholarship. That's

6:04

the engine room of this entire enterprise.

6:06

So in this museum, we're not just

6:08

displaying history, we're like actively interrogating it,

6:10

how it's being produced, how it's being

6:13

consumed, how it's being reimagined over time.

6:15

Yeah, and then you are and I

6:17

am and historians who are working today

6:19

are like a part of that process

6:22

that is a never ending process, right?

6:24

We're never going to reach like a

6:26

total conclusion because like history never ends

6:29

and historiography never ends. No, and that's

6:31

exciting. It's always in contention. So I

6:33

want to just like shake that cherry

6:35

tree and see what falls out. Oh,

6:38

shake the cherry nice, very nice. Thank

6:40

you. Do you think this can change

6:42

minds? I don't know. I mean, it's

6:44

not like I haven't told this story

6:47

before and it has changed some minds

6:49

and not others, but I don't know

6:51

if I can predict that. I don't

6:53

know if I can answer that yet,

6:56

because there's no museum that's looking at

6:58

the history of American history, a mirror

7:00

to our national psyche in this way,

7:03

where history isn't a inert subject. It's

7:05

a living, breathing entity with these very

7:07

real world consequences. It shapes our politics

7:09

and our morals and our identity as

7:12

a nation. Yeah, and then this would,

7:14

you know, like where we are. where

7:16

we're at right now is not just

7:18

that we're not studying historiography or the

7:21

history of history, like we're just gutting

7:23

history departments left and right. And so

7:25

far as anybody can tell right now,

7:27

they're what? They're like abolishing the Department

7:30

of Education? Right. It might be where

7:32

children go to learn. I mean, I

7:34

don't want to. I don't know if

7:37

I'm going to win the lottery because

7:39

I can't remember the last time I

7:41

bought a lottery ticket, but maybe I'll

7:43

sit next to like Mackenzie Bayesos on

7:46

an airplane very soon. because this is,

7:48

this thing needs to get built. We

7:50

need to break ground. I think when

7:52

we were first talking about this episode,

7:55

it was all like very theoretical and

7:57

fun, and now it almost feels like.

7:59

What would I do with a billion

8:01

dollars that you know, like just invest

8:04

in history because all funding is being

8:06

pulled? Right, but I think that's the

8:08

thing. It's not just that all funding

8:10

is being pulled, it's that, you know,

8:12

this kind of history that is anything

8:14

but celebratory. That's the word that

8:17

is used right now on every

8:19

government website as far as looking

8:21

forward for America's 250th, which is

8:23

happening, starts in July, it'll go

8:26

for a year. There is this comfort

8:28

in sanitized history. where our ancestors

8:30

were always on the right side

8:32

of the moral ledger. But that

8:34

story is not only wrong, it's

8:36

it's boring. And when a historian

8:38

comes along with a well-researched,

8:41

like receipts-in-hand narrative, that exposes

8:43

the darker, messier truths that

8:46

we've conveniently forgotten, I think

8:48

that's where it gets actually

8:50

really interesting. And so this

8:53

isn't just an academic exercise,

8:55

right? We're still grappling with

8:58

these deep... seated divisions today.

9:00

And so we have this choice.

9:02

We can keep clinging to our comforting

9:04

myths, the ones that are really vague,

9:06

or we can face the music. And

9:08

I'm not saying that we should flagellate

9:11

ourselves over past atrocities. We didn't

9:13

personally commit, which seems to be

9:15

a real fear for some people.

9:17

And I don't think anyone has

9:19

ever said that. But if we

9:21

want to chart a course to

9:23

a better future, we need to

9:26

understand what truths we've hidden and

9:28

why. So it's like, it's like family therapy

9:30

for an entire nation, but it's edifying.

9:32

It's uncomfortable. It's necessary for growth. So

9:34

I guess my museum would also have

9:37

like a lot of couches where we

9:39

can all sit down and have these difficult

9:41

conversations. Yeah, I mean, this is,

9:43

this is a great idea and wasn't even

9:45

far off of like what my idea would

9:48

have been for all of this because like

9:50

I too am like obsessed with how we

9:52

form these historical narratives and how like one

9:54

of the points that I always make to

9:56

people is that history does not exist

9:59

in the we study the

10:01

past but history itself exists in

10:03

the present and we are sort

10:05

of the repositories of all past

10:07

historical narratives that have come down

10:09

to us and then we have

10:11

to process it and then people

10:13

down the line will take what

10:15

we have done and process it

10:18

for their times and you know

10:20

something like this actually directly engaging

10:22

with that part of history. I

10:24

think would be enormously beneficial for

10:26

society. And so I wholeheartedly endorse

10:28

this. And if whoever Bizos is

10:30

listening does actually want to pump

10:32

money into this, that would be

10:35

fantastic. Yes, but it's a great

10:37

idea. I agree. I'm glad that

10:39

we have both had it. But

10:41

this is not the only thing.

10:43

that can be done for history

10:45

with like millions or billions of

10:47

dollars. And to help us explore

10:49

what else could be done, we

10:52

have gone out and asked people

10:54

what they would do for history,

10:56

people working in the field. So

10:58

we've brought in four guests to

11:00

answer that question for us and

11:02

then we'll talk about it. I'm

11:04

really excited by this because they're

11:06

all so different. First up is

11:09

Rory McGovern, a friend of mine

11:11

who runs the American and military

11:13

history. departments at West Point. Yeah,

11:15

I wasn't expecting this one. Yes,

11:17

which is why I also have

11:19

to preface this by saying these

11:21

are Rory's views and Rory's views

11:23

alone. They are not West Point.

11:26

This is a really interesting question.

11:28

And if I'm completely unconstrained by

11:30

amount of money or our current

11:32

understanding of the time space continuum,

11:34

I think I would put the

11:36

lottery money towards researching and recreating

11:38

the telephone booth from Bill and

11:40

Ted's excellent adventure. Because who among

11:43

us doesn't want to go and

11:45

meet the people that we've studied?

11:47

As historians, we've all encountered those

11:49

archival brick walls where... We're flummoxed.

11:51

We don't know why they think

11:53

what they think and the documents

11:55

in front of us and the

11:57

evidence doesn't really tell us. So

12:00

it would be great, excellent Bill

12:02

and Ted would say, if we could

12:04

go back and just ask them. Bonus

12:06

points if Keanu Reeves could be

12:08

our time traveling history buddy. Yeah, so

12:11

that's definitely not what I expected

12:13

the guy who runs the American in

12:15

military history at West Point to say.

12:17

I mean, God bless him, Bill and

12:19

Ted's excellent adventure is one of the

12:22

greatest movies of all time. And it

12:24

would be great to have a time

12:26

machine. Like so many. historical questions could

12:28

be answered if we had a time

12:30

machine. There is stuff that we can

12:33

just never have access to and never

12:35

know and people that we can never

12:37

interact with. So I am fully on

12:39

board with getting a time traveling

12:42

phone booth. And also, like I'm not

12:44

really worried about changing the timeline at

12:46

all because I have my own theories

12:48

about time travel and I just think

12:50

that if we get a time machine

12:52

and you go back into the past

12:54

that's already happened, it's already baked into

12:56

reality. So there's not really any worry

12:58

about changing history because all of

13:00

this will have already happened. Okay, I'm not

13:02

even going to touch that debate, but I do

13:05

love the Bill and Ted's excellent

13:07

adventure. perspective. I haven't watched it

13:09

in a really long time, but

13:11

as I recall, it was about

13:13

exploring not just exactly what happened,

13:15

but what is going on in

13:17

a general sentence. So considering what

13:19

it means to be a person of

13:21

historical significance at the time rather than

13:23

arriving with like a specific bold name

13:26

in mind. So I applaud Bill and

13:28

Ted always for being, you know, so

13:30

open-minded. And I love Bill and Ted's

13:32

and I love, I love Rory. He's

13:34

the sweetest, very, very, very, very white

13:36

man. And he's also got combat

13:39

training, which means that he is

13:41

perfectly comfortable time traveling. I'm a

13:43

woman. I don't have any sort

13:46

of combat training. I'm pretty nervous

13:48

about time travel, which of course

13:51

Rory anticipated, and he included

13:53

a second idea. If we have

13:55

to think a little more realistically,

13:57

I think I would want to

13:59

establish. a grant

14:02

program that

14:04

facilitates schools

14:06

taking robust history trips and

14:08

be able to pay for a

14:10

leading historian on the subject

14:12

that they are studying to accompany

14:14

them. I think that would

14:16

be amazing. I mean I know

14:18

I personally am always moved

14:20

by history but I moved more

14:22

when I'm able to show

14:24

up and consider it in the

14:26

place where it happened. I

14:28

like to use the money to

14:31

give students that kind of

14:33

experience especially if we can match

14:35

them up with leading experts in

14:37

the field. And if in a

14:39

perfect world we could combine both

14:41

maybe we get the grant to

14:43

send the schools through the telephone

14:45

booth and really experience it where

14:47

it happened. Obviously

14:50

everyone loves this idea.

14:52

There's nothing better than an

14:54

informed tour guide. Students should travel.

14:56

When I have guest lectured

14:58

at West Point they have been

15:00

they've just been my favorite students. They're

15:02

the most intellectually curious. They're responsible.

15:04

They're engaged. They obviously care about the

15:07

country and the country's history. So

15:09

I'm in. I would be one of

15:11

these tour guides or I would

15:13

just take this tour. The

15:15

next person who is

15:17

joining us is Marcia Chatlin,

15:19

another friend of mine, winner of the

15:21

Pulitzer Prize for history, a professor

15:23

at Penn. This is

15:25

another unexpected suggestion. Given

15:28

a whole bunch of money

15:30

I would devote an

15:32

entire museum to very special

15:35

episodes of 1980s and

15:37

1990s sitcoms. As a zennial

15:39

I watched so many

15:41

episodes that I think were

15:43

underwritten by the ad

15:45

council about drunk driving, about

15:47

eating disorders, about stranger

15:49

danger, and I would love

15:52

to curate a museum

15:54

that just talks about what

15:56

were the various lobby

15:58

groups that got on the edge. council

16:00

agenda that convinced TV

16:02

writers to write these episodes.

16:05

I would love to see just

16:07

entire walls of televisions

16:09

showing clips from TV

16:12

shows that warned

16:14

you about kidnapping or

16:16

episodes about fire safety

16:18

or episodes about the

16:20

dangers of alcohol. I

16:22

think that the use

16:24

of television for social

16:26

norming is really really

16:29

distinct for people my

16:31

age who grew up

16:33

in the ages of

16:35

the after school specials

16:37

as well as the

16:39

use of teen television stars

16:41

to tell students

16:44

not to do drugs or

16:46

not to smoke. So

16:48

I would do an

16:50

entire museum of this

16:52

very formative style of

16:54

television from my childhood. Yeah,

16:58

that's fantastic. I mean, that's the age

17:00

that I was growing up in. I

17:02

know all of those sitcoms that

17:04

she's talking about. I was bathed in

17:06

whatever messaging I was getting being

17:08

partly raised by the TV in the

17:10

1980s and 1990s. I think

17:12

it's a genius because it acknowledges

17:14

as well that our historical understanding

17:16

isn't just formed in classrooms or

17:19

museums. It's shaped by what we

17:21

binge watch, what ads we see,

17:23

what characters come to be our

17:25

cultural touchstones and how the Department

17:27

of Commerce and other places that

17:29

might not even exist anymore impact

17:31

our understanding of our country. So

17:33

by studying these shows, we're not

17:35

just analyzing entertainment, we're dissecting the

17:37

very fabric of our social evolution. And

17:40

I think that Marcia is so good

17:42

at contextualizing these kinds of high

17:45

low concepts and marrying them and showing

17:47

us that we really need to

17:49

integrate so many things in the way

17:51

that we study history. And

17:54

then you're up. The next two are your

17:56

friends. Okay, yeah, the next two are

17:58

my friends and we're going to start. with

18:00

Emily Tampkin, who's a freelance

18:02

journalist and a contributing columnist

18:05

at the forward. Were I to

18:07

win the lottery and with this

18:09

money could fund a history project,

18:11

I would want to fund research

18:13

into the Jewish People's Party or

18:16

Folks Partai. It was founded after

18:18

the Russian Revolution of 1905, which

18:20

was also a year of many

18:22

epigrom. And the reason that I

18:24

think the Jewish People's Party is

18:26

so interesting. even though it's perhaps

18:28

less well known than, obviously, than

18:30

Zionism or the Bund and other

18:33

movements that came out around the same

18:35

time, is that it was a national

18:37

movement, but a spiritual national movement.

18:39

In other words, it believed that

18:41

the Jewish nation was one that

18:43

was spiritually distinct, culturally distinct,

18:46

artistically distinct. It was part of

18:48

this idea of autonomism, which is

18:50

that Jews had to keep for

18:52

themselves. where they were a degree

18:55

of social, cultural autonomy. The main

18:57

founder is the gentleman by the

18:59

name of Simon DuPontnof, who himself

19:02

had a really interesting history and

19:04

story. It was a party in

19:06

Lithuania and Poland, did not survive

19:08

the Holocaust, and I think that

19:11

I would try to use this money to,

19:13

you know, providing funding for

19:15

books and papers and to

19:17

go through not only the

19:19

political history, but the way

19:21

in which that political history

19:23

overlaps with... intellectual production for lack

19:25

of a better word of the time, right?

19:27

So historical writings and art and stories. So

19:30

the thing I love about this is

19:32

really digging into something that is just

19:34

like this crazy obscure like this stuff

19:36

does matter and we should learn about

19:38

these things and every part of history

19:41

should have an opportunity to have a

19:43

light shown on it even if it

19:45

doesn't have like enormous commercial appeal. And

19:48

so I love that Emily grabbed just

19:50

this like incredibly obscure group and just

19:52

wants to dive in on them with

19:55

both feet. What's funny to me

19:57

about this idea is that I

19:59

think it's great. And I also think

20:01

it's the most applicable right now.

20:03

I mean, I actually think all

20:05

of them are with the exception

20:07

of the time travel and, you

20:09

know, actually traveling to other places.

20:11

But Marsha's idea could be an

20:14

exhibition in a, you know, a

20:16

museum of moving images, right? And

20:18

then Emily's could be a special

20:20

exhibition at a Jewish museum because

20:22

it reveals these larger truths about

20:24

immigration and assimilation and the evolution

20:26

of identity. So it's like using

20:28

a microscope. to understand the cosmos.

20:30

Sometimes the smallest details tell the

20:32

biggest story. So it's seen when

20:34

I was listening to it. Yes,

20:36

it's very specific. I didn't know

20:38

a lot about it, but I

20:40

could see it. I could see

20:42

buying a ticket to a museum

20:44

right now to go learn about

20:46

it. Yeah, I like the way

20:48

you put that using a microscope

20:50

to study the cosmos. Yeah, there's

20:52

something in that. Next up is

20:55

Christine Casapute. who is a founding

20:57

member of Footnoting History, a short

20:59

form history podcast that focuses on

21:01

the obscure and intriguing and has

21:03

been around for a very long

21:05

time. So this is Christine's suggestion.

21:07

Something you need to know about

21:09

me is that I've seen thousands

21:11

of professional theater performances. And growing

21:13

up, Broadway musicals were how I

21:15

first engaged with many historical topics.

21:17

For my project, I want to

21:19

create a museum experience that allows

21:21

you to walk through history via

21:23

musical theater. it would be a

21:25

blend of musical theater and historical

21:27

artifacts. You would walk through it

21:29

in chronological order. So you could

21:31

walk through rooms featuring musicals like

21:33

1776, The Civil War, Bonnie and

21:35

Clyde, the Scotsboro Boys, which is

21:38

about a group of black men

21:40

accused of raping two white women

21:42

in the 1930s, and allegiance, which

21:44

is about Japanese internment in the

21:46

US during World War II. The

21:48

result would be an exploration of

21:50

errors of joy and progress alongside

21:52

those of hardship, despair, and mistreatment

21:54

and injustice. It would emphasize critical

21:56

examinations of both art and historical

21:58

facts. In fact, look at the

22:00

way history is documented as it

22:02

unfolds, as well as how later

22:04

artists choose to tell the stories

22:06

for a modern public. In as

22:08

many rooms as possible, there would

22:10

be displays of Broadway costumes next

22:12

to real historical clothing, options to

22:14

watch Tony Awards performances and interviews

22:16

with the creative teams, or, where

22:19

available, footage of the historical

22:21

figures. You could see newspapers or letters

22:23

from the eras, or there could be

22:25

live performances. It would be awesome, I promise.

22:27

This really appealed to me. I am

22:29

not a musical theater person per se,

22:32

I like going to musical theater, but

22:34

I get really lost in those conversations.

22:36

Also, I love the idea of someone who's

22:38

both a history nerd and a

22:40

musical theater nerd that been diagram

22:42

was intense. But if you take

22:44

Hamilton, for instance, it's not

22:46

just about the founding fathers, it's

22:49

a layered narrative about how

22:51

we've understood and reinterpret

22:53

the founding fathers stories

22:55

from... churnout's hagiography to

22:58

Miranda's adaptation down to the subsequent

23:00

discussions and apologies, it's all

23:02

the same thing. It's just

23:04

like the previous idea,

23:07

the wonderful for that. It's

23:09

a microcosm of how historical

23:11

narratives evolve. Yeah, and then

23:13

it's working on a very metal

23:16

level, you know, like using the

23:18

form to discuss the form and

23:20

using the form to discuss what

23:22

the form is about, because it's

23:24

like a multimedia extravaganza. With whichever

23:26

good exhibition is, as I was listening to

23:28

her describe it, I was thinking, yeah, I

23:31

mean, I'm on the board of a bunch

23:33

of them I used to curate them, that

23:35

we, you always want this multimedia effect, you

23:37

want to be sort of. awash with these

23:39

sources that you can imagine what

23:41

it was like to be alive

23:44

at the time. You're not just

23:46

listening to a soundtrack, you're not

23:48

just seeing something, you're reading a

23:50

newspaper, you're seeing photographs, you're understanding

23:52

what a train looked like, you're

23:54

hopefully sitting in one. And so

23:56

I love the way she really developed

23:58

it. All of the ideas here... kind of

24:00

rhymed, no one's really trying to

24:02

reinvent the wheel here. But instead

24:05

they're examining how we can think

24:07

about that wheel, like how is

24:09

invented, who gets credit, and why.

24:11

It's a slow, sometimes unexpected, unveiling

24:13

of how ideas form and how

24:15

they're challenged and contested. And it's

24:17

this kind of deep dive that

24:19

we rarely get to indulge in,

24:22

even in a book, right? What

24:24

we've been discussing is basically, it's

24:26

a preface, it's an introduction, it's

24:28

not the whole book, unless it's

24:30

a book that's only studied in

24:32

graduate history programs. But all the

24:34

approaches they share this common thread,

24:36

they're peeling back the layers of

24:39

how we construct and understand our

24:41

history, whether it's through sitcoms. niche

24:43

exhibitions, musical numbers, my own histographical

24:45

wonderland. We're all just trying to

24:47

show that history isn't a static

24:49

set of facts. It's living, it's

24:51

breathing, it's constantly evolving, and it's

24:53

a narrative that continues to shape

24:56

our present and will shape our

24:58

future. Yeah, and that's how we

25:00

all approach our work too. And

25:02

you know, one of the other

25:04

things that's just obviously kind of

25:06

built into the question is that

25:08

all of these would really be

25:10

personal passion projects. And I think

25:13

that sometimes out there in the

25:15

world history can, you know, people

25:17

think of history as being very

25:19

boring or, you know, not something

25:21

that is, that is, it excites

25:23

people or causes people to be

25:25

passionate about something. And so any

25:27

opportunity to get somebody with some

25:30

funding in some direction and some

25:32

ability to really create something that

25:34

is deeply meaningful to them like

25:36

that kind of enthusiasm and passion

25:38

I think comes through for whatever

25:40

the audience is, who's going to

25:42

be then taking it all in.

25:44

That's funny. I think of us

25:47

all as working on passion projects

25:49

just without the money to do

25:51

so and it hasn't stopped us

25:53

thus far. So I guess it'd

25:55

be nice to have the money,

25:57

but we're all still doing it.

25:59

So our in and I think

26:01

everyone should read the great works

26:04

that our contributors have written so far

26:06

and will list them in the show

26:08

notes. So you will have a lot

26:10

to read during our break. I don't

26:12

know. I don't know what to call

26:14

it. Our a prey season zero. at

26:16

Pre-season Zero works. And we're still figuring

26:18

out what works and what's what and

26:20

what's possible for us in the future

26:22

and what we should be doing in

26:24

the future. In the meantime, thank you

26:26

to our listeners for your support and

26:28

your patience and your grace and thank

26:31

you to today's guests or in McGovern,

26:33

Marsha Chatlin, Emily Tamkin, Christine Casaputee. Yeah, thank

26:35

you to all of them and thank you to you to you

26:37

out there listening out there listening and

26:39

that's a wrap on Season Zero and

26:41

co history show history show. I'm Mike

26:43

Duncan, my co-host is Alexis Alexis Alexis

26:46

Alexis Alexis Alexis O, And that was

26:48

our show.