This week, ending in August 18 2016:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
What efforts do historians enact to counter the issue of "history is written by the victors"? How do we manage to report reliably on the causes of wars, etc, when the most frequent surviving accounts would seem to be in the favor of power at the time?
When does the events counts as historical events ? I mean academically is there a date-line, some prerequisites that must be fulfilled before or simply someone has to put some /essay/book/paper for that ? I mean I know a guy who put up a thesis on Friends's effect on entertainment history, and it is accepted.
Especially in short-term history it gets all blurry. Like last 30 years of middle-eastern history. There is too much information and rumors and even conspiracy theories. How historians sort them through or they just catalog everything and wait for other evidence to support their theories?
Debate Topic: Treaty of Trianon
Is it possible to say in the modern day almost 100 years later just how bad the consequences have been for the Hungarian minorities beyond the border, and for the countries that came out of/expanded because of the treaty?