Can an event that occurred three days ago be studied in a history course?

[PseuTonym]

How about an event that occurred three weeks ago, three months ago, or three years ago?

Before the telegraph was in widespread use, news would travel much more slowly than today. An event would be classified as a current event when most of the people who would be interested had no opportunity to become aware of the event, because there wasn’t enough time for news of the event to reach them. When awareness of the event is in the future, the event is “current.”

Now, is there a gap, with some events too old to be considered “current events” (because of adaptation to technology), and also too recent to be considered “history” (because there is prestige associated with what nobody can remember because no living person is old enough to have been alive when the event occurred)?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

How about an event that occurred three weeks ago, three months ago, or three years ago?

Before the telegraph was in widespread use, news would travel much more slowly than today. An event would be classified as a current event when most of the people who would be interested had no opportunity to become aware of the event, because there wasn’t enough time for news of the event to reach them. When awareness of the event is in the future, the event is “current.”

Now, is there a gap, with some events too old to be considered “current events” (because of adaptation to technology), and also too recent to be considered “history” (because there is prestige associated with what nobody can remember because no living person is old enough to have been alive when the event occurred)?

Many history classes will deal with current events in relation to their historical context. The events of today never happen in a vacuum. They don’t just spring up without precedent (even if they appear to, it is interesting to find out how they differ from similar situations). In a sense, history is being created every day.

It is interesting to think about how our idea of “current” would differ so much from that of our grandparents though.

 

[Estevao]

One of the things lacking in most history departments (or at least in the one I attended) is a course on the philosophy of history or historiography or whatever you want to call it. It’s a shame but I think it comes from the same reason why philosophy is no longer taught in high schools. When people know how to think and reason, the typical neo-marxist SJW dogma that professors and the media ram down people’s throats wouldn’t be as welcome in the minds of the youngsters who populate leftist indoctrination centers a.k.a. colleges/universities.

As for this particular question, I think you need many decades to pass before current events become history. With the passing of time the political issues become more of a dead letter and a more objective take on history is possible. It’s hard enough to become a good historian and remove one’s biases and attempt to understand the past when the event has no “left and right” tagging along with it. But with something that just happened, there is much less possibility for objectivity about events. Letting current events become history is the historical equivalent of secret ballots. It allows the historian to hide his cards. Especially in the current university climate where free-thought is under so much attack from leftists, although some renowned institutions of History such as Cambridge I would presume are oases from this neo-marxist climate. (I presume because I didn’t go and would probably not get in )

 

[mdgspencer]

If something is important, having a recent event in a history course is justified.
I once took a course in 20th century American history, and the course provided much insight in what had happened in recent years. The only problem was that the texts we used didn’t cover these events, or in any depth. But the professor himself gave some real understanding about events of recent years, which I greatly appreciated.

 

[Crusaderbear]

History in the making…understanding what becomes history vs what becomes a footnote…it should be understood and appreciated.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t think the cutoff for ‘history’ is bounded by living memory. Events such as the Vietnam War or the fall of the Berlin Wall, which millions still remember, would fall into modern history.

Living memory, after all, is the first stage in the recording of history. Events large enough or significant enough to stick in many heads become history; events that fail to register in the head, don’t.

The idea of “current events” as a separate category is rather ISTM modern itself, coming from the journalism and electric media. An event still recent enough to be carried by these media is a current event. When it is no longer carried, but is still in people’s heads, it is being filtered into history.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mVitus]

History in the making…understanding what becomes history vs what becomes a footnote…it should be understood and appreciated.

True. Something that seems big but doesn’t carry on would be pointless to study whereas small things overlooked may become important.

 

[edwest2]

Good history relies on facts. A three day old event can be studied but ongoing investigations cannot. Updates become available and something mundane may turn into part of something bigger. A person can’t know everything about everything and it’s the reason there are specialists. The American Civil War is still a hot topic for some while new discoveries of something ancient are important to some. Sadly, history is only as relevant as you want it to be. I say sadly because outside points of view can turn a factual event into a way for a teacher/professor to promote his own ideology.

I have a library of obscure to very obscure books about World War II. There are dedicated researchers out there. New books are published on a regular basis, but, why bother? Work, paying the bills and a wife or girlfriend plus entertainment are more fun. Maybe you have some other hobby/interest or not.

Who decides what is in History books? That’s another question. I have books that contain facts. And new facts keep coming to light. When documents are declassified, for example, things are revised and updated. This can happen 50, 75 or more years after the fact.

Young people should be taught agenda-free history.

Ed

 

[GEddie]

Young people should be taught agenda-free history.

• 1. Ditch the nuances and perspectives; events, names, years and locations are what history is made of.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Indeed. The same could be said about Pearl Harbor, or the first battle at Bull Run.

The hordes that flocked to Bull Run (as foolhardy as that course of action proved) or the crowds at the Berlin Wall as it came down, knew they were seeing “history in the making” with their own eyes.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

• 1. Ditch the nuances and perspectives; events, names, years and locations are what history is made of.

ICXC NIKA

I don’t know how in-depth you’ve studied history. But you might be surprised (or not) how often there are conflicting facts in history. History is a cause-and-effect relationship. That takes more than looking at dry dates and names. It takes a complete study of the events, the people, and how people thought. Facts also always require interpretation. The same sets of facts can lead different people to completely different conclusions.

More broadly to the point of the thread - what I think we get most out of history is that it puts our current life into a broader context. So it can be very useful in a history class to discuss current events, because those events are part of a cause-and-effect trail that goes back to the start of history. More or less.

 

[PseuTonym]

• 1. Ditch the nuances and perspectives; events, names, years and locations are what history is made of.

ICXC NIKA

How is it possible to describe events without nuances and perspectives? Names, years, and locations are data, and they can be either looked up – provided that one can describe the events that make those names, years and locations important – or memorized. However, memorization should be a last resort if the goal is to acquire understanding. What good does it do to memorize the spellings of words if you don’t understand the meanings?