I've been reading a great collection of essays in the book The Global 1989: Continuity and Change in World Politics. While there isn't yet a coherent historiographical field on the post-Cold War era, from the few books published on the subject, it seems that one of the major questions future historians will ask is whether or not the year 1989 represented a revolution in global affairs. The contributors to The Global 1989 argue that, while major changes did take place in 1989, historians should view the events of that year and the years immediately after as the final strand of changes that had been taking place over the last several decades rather than being a radical break with the past. I just wanted to point this book out for anyone that may be interested in this era of history and say that there is some absolutely great stuff that historians are coming out with on the post-Cold War world.

To perhaps spark some debate, what do others think about 1989 and the post-Cold War era: Is it more accurate to see this period primarily as a time of continuity or change?