Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalobob
My daughter just took a history course that was supposed to deal with "modern History" but of course the professor only knew archaeological history and so she was greatly disappointed that the events such as sputnik, civil rights. interstate highways, and Vietnam were only briefly touched on at the last minute.
|
FWIW, there's a difference between modern history and contemporary history.
The former is considered to include events from the late 1400s (give or take a decade or two) onwards while the latter alternately includes events of the last fifty years or so and/or events in which people still living participated.
Within the domain of academic history, the study of contemporary history is controversial for two reasons. First, it is hard to know if a current event is going to be historically significant. Second, the study of history centers around primary source materials. Those source materials need time to become available. Consequently, the question becomes
Can historians responsibly discuss an event when one can only see the tip of the iceberg?