Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards —

When I was about to become a teenager I began to notice that the history textbooks we had in school “left off” several years before their publication date. That bothered me a little, because I really enjoyed history and wanted the whole thing.

I now realize that the leaving off was prudent. I also am aware that besides History, there is a category that bookstores tend to label Current Affairs or maybe Current Events. So let’s see. First you have News. That quickly mutates into Current Affairs which then ferments into History.

These distinctions are useful. History ideally is a dispassionate, balanced account of past events. The closer events are to the present, the less likely they are to be described in a balanced, dispassionate manner. That’s because current politics or ideological positions, along with associated strong emotions can get in the way of clear observation. Given this likelihood, it’s a good thing to have a label for the transition period from News into History.

I suppose there must be guidelines here and there regarding what point History kicks in, but I’m not going to research that. After all, I need to generate 2Blowhards content, don’t I?

Let’s discuss this. Although Current Affairs or Current Events can easily be construed as happenings within the last year or two, I think History needs to wait about 20 years (preferably 30 years — a generation) before passions cool. For example, we’re just reaching the point where the Reagan presidency can be discussed without blood on the floor. This does not mean that defenders and opponents of George W. Bush, for instance, should remain silent. Personal accounts of White House life, Cabinet debates, bureaucratic and legislative maneuvering, diplomatics actions and so forth are necessary grist for later historical accounts.

So how long do you think the period from News to History ought be? (And, for what it’s worth, I think the argument that all history is biased is irrelevant. Taken to the extreme, it implies that there is no point in writing or reading history, and that notion is foolish.)

Later,

Donald

Via 2blowhards