When does an event become historical?

slowburner

At one end of the spectrum we have prehistory where primary written records are unavailable and thus considered beyond the remit of historians (?).
What about the other end? When is something too current to be considered history?
Can an event or series of events be studied as history if they are part of another sequence which is as yet, unresolved?

MungBean

Anything that has already happened is history I suppose. Even if something is ongoing (which everything is to some degree anyway) you can still study the history of it up to whatever point its at no matter how recent the events.

I'd imagine the present is the actual line but the closer you get to it the more "history" becomes blurred with "current affairs". The Libyan rebellion is now part of Libyan history even though it only concluded a few weeks ago (parts still ongoing) and its still pretty much in the news as current affairs.

snafuk35

slowburner wrote: »

At one end of the spectrum we have prehistory where primary written records are unavailable and thus considered beyond the remit of historians (?).
What about the other end? When is something too current to be considered history?
Can an event or series of events be studied as history if they are part of another sequence which is as yet, unresolved?

Current events are history. History is lived in the here and now. You can only understand the present in the light of past events. All history and events are link in someway and history is now about archaeology, philosophy, sociology, politics, culture and much more.

Take the recent Libyan Uprising which just came to an end and may well be followed by a civil war between the various religious and political factions that took part in Gaddaffi's overthrow.

Right now your views on the overthrow of Gaddaffi are perhaps informed by a post-Bush, post-Iraq War, post-9/11 outlook.
Many leftists would see the overthrow of Gaddaffi as another imperial takeover.
However others might see it as the beginning of a resurgent Islam that has been flexing its muscles since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the take over of Mecca by extremists in or around the same time.
Libya overthrew its dictatorship with Western help and the overthrow of dictators might in future led to a pan Islamic Empire across the Middle East like those that existed in previous centuries.
Alternatively Libya and other countries in the Mid East might become liberal secular democracies like in Europe and America.

We don't know but we will know in twenty years and in a hundred or two hundred years historians may look back with a different point of view on our times.

jonniebgood1

slowburner wrote: »

At one end of the spectrum we have prehistory where primary written records are unavailable and thus considered beyond the remit of historians (?).
What about the other end? When is something too current to be considered history?
Can an event or series of events be studied as history if they are part of another sequence which is as yet, unresolved?

It would seem to me that the lapse from current affairs to history is difficult to define exactly. It is probably answered by an exact formula in historical terms somewhere. I think Deleuze and Guattaris logic of 'becoming' could be applied to history in ways that provide an answer to the question. This relies on the actual current affair passing through 3 phases of being to become history, 1 current affair, 2. recorded event/ affair, 3. history (study or review of the event). The correct context of the logic of becoming is

it is a matter of A becoming B at the very moment that B is itself taking a line of flight and becoming something else. When two elements enter into a sympathetic becoming "it is not that the two are exchanged, for they are not exchanged at all, but the one only becomes the other if the other becomes something yet other, and if the terms disappear. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue15/dema.html

Edit> More on this here ref page 149 & 150.

slowburner

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It would seem to me that the lapse from current affairs to history is difficult to define exactly. It is probably answered by an exact formula in historical terms somewhere. I think Deleuze and Guattaris logic of 'becoming' could be applied to history in ways that provide an answer to the question. This relies on the actual current affair passing through 3 phases of being to become history, 1 current affair, 2. recorded event/ affair, 3. history (study or review of the event). The correct context of the logic of becoming is

Edit> More on this here ref page 149 & 150.

Cripes, that's a heavy duty book.

I was talking to an old friend the other day about his recurring nightmare. In his nightmare he is re-sitting his final exams in Philosophy.
"You may turn over your papers, now", says the invigilator.
My friend stares at the paper and realises that he can't even understand the questions let alone write anything about them.
For me, this was reality most of the time

Thankfully, you have simplified a description of D & G's logic of becoming (no fashion pun intended).

Philosophers have a love of ordering things in triumvirates (Hegel's thesis, antithesis, synthesis, for example). I suspect that D&G in their efforts to define 'becoming' as it relates to the history of philosophy, might have conveniently overlooked a process or two. There is a fair old jump, philosophically, between (2) the recorded event/affair and (3) history (study review of the event).
You could argue too, that the recorded event/affair is still a current affair, particularly with contemporary media.

All sound philosophy starts with definition. No philosophical enquiry can be carried out without definition of the terms of the enquiry.
In this case, perhaps the a definition of a current affair is the challenge. A closer scrutiny of what is meant by 'recording' is probably necessary too.

Perhaps the book addresses this in greater detail.

"You may turn over your papers, now"

conor.hogan.2

The overlap can be huge, I had a few lectures by Tadhg O'Keeffe where the lines of History and Archaeology were very very blurred.

They go hand in hand imo.

tac foley

I was once advised by a cleverer person than I am that archaeology was history without the writing.

In other words, if there exists a written record, then we are looking at history...

tac

Judgement Day

I find something becomes history for me when it's no longer painful to read/discuss the subject e.g. 1798, WWI & II, the Falklands War but not the recent "Troubles", Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, 9/11 etc. - that's purely personal. Anybody else find it helps to compartmentalise things like this?

slowburner

Judgement Day wrote: »

I find something becomes history for me when it's no longer painful to read/discuss the subject e.g. 1798, WWI & II, the Falklands War but not the recent "Troubles", Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, 9/11 etc. - that's purely personal. Anybody else find it helps to compartmentalise things like this?

I understand what you are saying, and I think it's interesting.
So, theoretically, an event can be considered historical when there is a degree of emotional detachment.
Conversely, if one or other party in a discussion cannot detach themselves from their emotional involvement with the facts - then it's not history.

I think too, that sometimes people choose not to leave their emotional baggage at the door, usually with an ulterior motive.