Social network for specific group or topic?

Question

I would like to see a social network for historians or where people talk about history. Social networks are created for everyone. Everyone can be a member and post what he/she wants. Often, it is uniteresting or unpleasant content (personal photos, spam, scams, pornography, politics etc). Social networks for specific group or topic could be better because people would see content relevant to them. 

Answer 1

There are specific social networks around certain themes, but they might be one-sided and historical networks tend to focus too much on politics, religions and other conflictual questions or views, and not on history itself. A combination of several cultural themes might allow a broader spectrum of discussions, as history is often linked with geography and arts, cultures, nature, biodiversity, ecology and climatic conditions. Science is dealing increasingly with interdisciplinary programmes and projects, as all the different disciplines are more or less depending on each other.

It would be also useful to allow the sharing of classic (and modern) literature, poetry, music and good (clean) humour.

I agree with you that personal and private life, with selfies, dating, relationships, etc., should normally be limited to family, closest friends, school, work and specific interest groups on a small level (if needed by PM or in a separate, closed group) and not be disclosed to the greater public - for their own sake.

Comments

I communicate with family members and friends via phone or I visit them. I follow only several people I know on Internet. I don't like to share my photos on Internet. 

---

@ Marianne,

And the interpretation of history is often politicized; for example, Marxists tend to view practically everything in terms of class struggle and economics.

P.S. Everything physical is ultimately physics. 

---

@Kninjanin

That is the very best thing you can do.

---

Indeed, T(h)ink, and politics tend to be physical too, as past and present history keeps telling.

Your statement is correct.

I found, finally, what I was looking for (they don't speak so much about too physical politics in the news):

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/158755-brawling-politicians-fighting

Answer 2

I used to be a member of this political discussion group, but I think it died from lack of activity.

I can't even log in anymore. 

http://politicaldebateforums.com/

Answer 3

I would like to see a site like that as I'm very much a historian and study many historical subject and people. But since there seems to be nothing but nonsense pretty much out there? I just read as much as I can in between my work. Which is also WW2 history for the most part. Just now reading a book about the bloody battle of Okinawa that is written for both sides. The U.S. and Japan and I've already learned a lot. I highly recommend it. 

Comments

I remember reading about General Ushijima committing seppuku on Okinawa rather than surrender.

What a contrast to Tojo, who only attempted suicide when he was about to be arrested in his apartment by American occupation forces. Tojo tried to shoot himself in the heart but missed, to be hanged later after he recovered from his wound.

---

@Tink : As did General Kuribayashi on Iwo Jima. Both brave men. In the end, history will always label Tojo as a coward. Reading one chapter from a couple of Marines and then another chapter with Ushijima and some others is quite interesting indeed. Like most all of the Japanese Generals and Admirals, they all knew that Tojo pushed them into a war they knew they could never win.

---

@ Rooster,

I often wondered what was going on in Tojo's and the Japanese war party's heads.  Did they think a major naval defeat would bring the US to favorable terms, as it did the Russians in 1905?

---

@Tink : They did think that way! A major blow to the U.S. and the British and others would cripple them and they could take all the lands with the resources they needed and then let the U.S. sue for peace. The men at the top never were told the truth of the many defeats by naval and army forces and the people themselves never heard the truth, But inside? They knew it was lost. The major divide between the Army and Navy was a major factor in those defeats. The people believed that Japan had won the Battle of Midway and it wasn't until Okinawa that some started to open their eyes as to what was really happening. Tojo and the Army militants led Japan to total disaster. All the major Generals nd Admirals knew they could not win this war but Tojo prevailed.

---

@ Rooster,

Amazing that they successfully hid the defeat at Midway, with thousands of their sailors and airmen having died. Or did they claim to have won, despite having lost four carriers?

---

@Tink : They actually claimed that it was a major victory with all U.S. ships sunk. Most all of the Japanese people never learned all the truths till long after the war. They couldn't admit any defeats to the Emperor. They would have lost to much face and the Emperor couldn't know. The A-bombs finally woke him up to the truth! That and Russia declaring war and their post war demands.

---

@ Rooster,

But surely the Emperor and the general public must have realized something was terribly wrong after the firebombing of Tokyo. Nobody could hide or deny that awful destruction.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/firebombing-of-tokyo

Answer 4

Kninjanin, I would like to see a Q/A network like that, also. I am interested in several historical topics, such as the effect of the Black Plague on world history - especially Western civilization, although the Plague was in the Eastern hemisphere also.