History of the Present is a journal devoted to history as a critical endeavor. Its aim is twofold: to create a space in which scholars can reflect on the role history plays in establishing categories of contemporary debate by making them appear inevitable, natural or culturally necessary; and to publish work that calls into question certainties about the relationship between past and present that are taken for granted by the majority of practicing historians.

Founded in 1918, the University of Illinois Press (www.press.uillinois.edu) ranks as one of the country's larger and most distinguished university presses. The Press publishes more than 120 new books and 30 scholarly journals each year in an array of subjects including American history, labor history, sports history, folklore, food, film, American music, American religion, African American studies, women's studies, and Abraham Lincoln. The Press is a founding member of the Association of American University Presses as well as the History Cooperative, an online collection of more than 20 history journals.

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Copyright 2017 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
Request Permissions