Ahmed’s Polyglot Manifesto is a powerful and convincing argument for the translation of history (the past) into the (digital) future. He raises some of the most important questions of our day facing the humanities.

As one of the new-media Young Turks, Ahmed’s manifesto calls into question the form and purpose of history. History needs to be translated into new (digital) forms for the purpose of connecting with the rest of the world or be “annihilated.”

Ahmed’s assault on form takes on the traditional scholarly monograph in order to make serious history available to the connected world. Connections then should breed collaboration and advancement of the field.

This, however, calls into question the very purpose of history. If history is to be written for everyman in the connected world, then get on with it! Get going! Don’t look back, but good luck paying the rent.

If history is to be written for the profession, publication of serious digital history faces an insurmountable barrier. Shifting from the monograph to the web will transfer political power from the profession’s gatekeepers to everyman.

This transfer of power will take a generation and it will only happen if two conditions are met: first, enough Young Turks have to gain tenure by first satisfying the old guard under existing conventions. Second, they will have to remain true to their beliefs and ultimately give up their power when they gain it. This is a tall task considering human nature.

The sad dilemma is that this potential diffusion of the profession’s power through mass digitization is going to annihilate the practice due to action, not the lack of it. This annihilation will take place because the mass democratization of history will ultimately lower the barriers, but also ultimately the professional standards and practices.