A Question of Jurisdiction, or, When is it history?

[Lockesdonkey]

Were the hour not so late, I'd turn this into a mini-essay. As things stand, I'll present this bit of musing:

At what point is an event "history" for the purposes of this forum? For instance, the July War (i.e. the Israel-Hezbollah business in '06): Is that history? Or is it too recent?

This is supposed to be more than just a question to be answered; I'd like to see some reasoning.

Speaking of which, at what point is an event "history" in general? When does news stop being news? Discuss, if you want...

 

[Agent327]

Simply put: yesterday's news is today's history. (Or: today's news is tomorrow's history.)

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

News is just a observation of what happened, while history is the actual origins and the whole story. News is just a fragmentation of history.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

OK, but (addressing the first question) why don't we put, say, discussions of the Georgian action in this forum rather than in OT? After all, it happened months ago.

Again, at what point do you seriously begin to think of certain events as history as opposed to last month's news? There's a real difference in most people's minds, and don't pretend to be immune.

 

[Agent327]

For it to be history all sources need to be available. (And a historian needs to write it - or at least compile the sources.)

 

[citedon]

For it to be history all sources need to be available. (And a historian needs to write it - or at least compile the sources.)

1. I understand what you are saying and agree to a point. However, I would not use the term "all sources". The use of absolutes can be tricky. We usually don't know if all sources are available about any subject. Also the lable of historian can be problematic. I have seen some very good history written by economists, journalists, military professionals, etc.

2. To state that something is either history or a current or general event is simply and opinion, and we all have various opinions. None are better than any others under most circumstances. For this forum, we rely on the opinions of the moderators to tell us what is and isn't history. We may not always agree, but it does maintain a certain order to the forum. I think they do a pretty good job.

 

[Agent327]

To use your Georgian invasion example: history will not be written until the sources of all sides involved are disclosed, i.e. all sources. (Until then it will be up to investigative journalism.) Non-professionals may write history, sure; but if they do they become in fact historians - which is my point here.

Relying on Moderators to tell you what is and is not history? (A quick look at the threads in the world History should correct that viewpoint.) I would rely on what a historian tells you about it - which is what I'm doing: relating the historian's view.

 

[citedon]

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you totally that when one writes history he/she in fact becomes a historian. I still hold to my reluctance to use the term all sources to define history, but that is only my opinion which is no more valid than yours. As far as relying on moderators to define history, I ment only so far as this tread is concerned. Like I said, we don't always agree with them. I think it is good that they allow a broad interpritation of what is acceptable, otherwise there would be little to read on this forum. We must accept the wheat with the chaff.

 

[Evie]

"Until the sources of all sides involved are disclosed" is something I disagree with deeply. History has been written - is still being written - on several topics on which we have only the sources of one side involved, if even that.

Rather, I would say an event becomes history when mindsets change away from the mindset created by the events into another mindset.

Take World War II for example. I would say Pearl Harbor became history when the Cold War began, as people moved from the Pearl-Harbor-incited "World War" mindset into a different mindset, that had to do with a new reality in world politics, of which Pearl Harbor was not part.

Similarly, I think eventually some event will happen that will cause people to change their mindset, to stop seeing Islamic terrorism as the Great Evil, ie, change their mindset away from the "war on terror" mindset. When that happens, September 11 will no longer be actuality, and become history instead.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

To use your Georgian invasion example: history will not be written until the sources of all sides involved are disclosed, i.e. all sources. (Until then it will be up to investigative journalism.) Non-professionals may write history, sure; but if they do they become in fact historians - which is my point here.

By that criterion, all of the Arab-Israeli wars (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973) are still in the realm of investigative journalism: none of the Arab governments have released significant documents; they remain closed to both domestic and foreign scholars and journalists. Similarly, all Israeli government documents have only been released for 1948, and I think 1956 and 1967 (the last one is most uncertain), and even then only with in the last 15-20 years, if not more recently (this is why the Israeli [wiki]New Historians[/wiki] have only been popping up since the '80s: their work was made possible by the declassification of Israeli documents).

Furthermore, what's a "source?" Is it just documents? Does it include interviews? And in this day and age, will we need copies of all significant e-mails and other electronic communications? What about non-state actors, for whom documentation is often spotty at best (e.g. Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda)? I think a better criterion is needed.

 

[North King]

Possibly when the effects of an event can start to be clearly identified and play out fully? I doubt there's a black-and-white definition.

 

[Agent327]

History has been written - is still being written - on several topics on which we have only the sources of one side involved, if even that.

True, but, as you say, this will result in a one-sided history, which, equally true, is also history. I was looking at it from a world history point of view. Ofcourse it's totally valid to write a history of the Arab-Israeli wars using only Israeli sources - to pick up on the latest example mentioned -, as long as the writer realizes this one-sidedness and acknowledges it.

A source is, basically, anything providing information. While traditionally this included only written material, since the development of archaeology as a science and oral history as a discipline or method of history (originally just signifying research) this has widened significantly. Newspapers and other media of information may also be used as a source if evaluated critically - as all sources should be.

And, for general information, I'm not relating any personal view on the matter, but rather speaking as a former student of history at Leiden University.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Were the hour not so late, I'd turn this into a mini-essay. As things stand, I'll present this bit of musing:

At what point is an event "history" for the purposes of this forum? For instance, the July War (i.e. the Israel-Hezbollah business in '06): Is that history? Or is it too recent?

This is supposed to be more than just a question to be answered; I'd like to see some reasoning.

Speaking of which, at what point is an event "history" in general? When does news stop being news? Discuss, if you want...

The general rule my History Department follows is that ten years is the cutoff date; older and it is History, younger and it is Political Science.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The general rule my History Department follows is that ten years is the cutoff date; older and it is History, younger and it is Political Science.

That's reasonable for research, but it's obviously artificial.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Any definition on the subject is going to be artificial. If you wanted to be truly technical, any and every thing that has happened, including me writing this post, is history. We use the general ten-years-hence rule to give time for the situation to be somewhat digested, analyzed, and passed through, a rule in itself that often fails to pass its own muster, but then we established ten years as the threshold, our threshold, not the definite rule.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Any definition on the subject is going to be artificial.

To some degree, yes. But some definitions are better or more interesting than others.

Are you trying to cut off this conversation?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not really, I was just giving my opinion. I mean, there are varying degrees of arbitration, I was just saying that I thought any definition of "history' is going to fall in that category. I'm sure other people can come up with less arbitrary definitions than mine, and some more than. I'm aware that my opinion on this is just that; I didn't mean to state it as a fact, full stop.

 

[Agent327]

While it is a truism that even historians don't agree on what constitutes history, there is a consensus on the subject - which I have tried to indicate in previous posts. (The basic problem with a definition is that history isn't an exact science - not beta, but alpha so to speak.)