One of my history A level topics of focus was Britain 1951-2007. Wasnt even like stuff my parents told me about, there was events in there I remembered happening in my teenaged years.Given I left school in 2013 it was absolute madness. Quite an interesting period though and did link well with politics A level.
I would say its rolling, certainly Thatchers Britain of the 80s and Cool Brittania of the mid 90s would be fair game for historians, The World at War series came out early/mid 70s so personally I would say between 20-30 years after the event?
For instance Clive Mendonca - History BFG - Current affairs Yet both are covered in the museum
It's a very good question though and one to be debated without an objective right answer,
I guess it's all about the historiography and what is relevant to the person considering the question.
I took ('modern' - post 1918) History O Level in the early 80s, and picked up a miserable 'D'!!! At the time, I only needed an English Lang O Level (and to pass the 'entrance' test) for the job I wanted to do, and so everything else took a back seat, whilst I made no real effort other than in English!
Hindsight, of course, is wonderful, and it really pees me off when I think of my attitude at that time.
History now absolutely fascinates me. I've a particular interest in WWI (bolstered by a few humbling trips to the Ypres salient), and the events surrounding the holocaust are also of great interest (if that's the correct phraseology?).
Have even discovered a new found curiosity in the monarchy, because I get really annoyed when I watch 'The Chase' and don't know some of the answers to the questions covering that topic! The period around the 'reformation' is fascinating.
As my folks always said, "you must try harder at school"!!
I agree totally. A further debate though is, what is worthy to be considered 'history' for study?
As a secondary school History teacher for nearly all of my career, I found the limitations of the examination syllabi, and National Curriculum in later years, very frustrating. After school, so many adults seem to return to and enjoy history of all kinds. The human story element seems to have been squeezed out of history in schools for the pursuit of source recognition and bias etc. Very worthy and valuable, but so is the human story.
There are perspectives, national myths and inherited grievances. Each new set of circumstances is informed and formed by what went before. This is an approach I’ve been involved in recently
I have always considered 'history' being the moment the last witness to a given event dies. Anything that disappears from living memory becomes history.
I'm not interested enough to look, but I would imagine that according the Cambridge or Oxford dictionaries the word 'history' would have lots of meanings.
Bonne for Lapslie. Reasonable change that, glad to see Bows making an early change. Lapslie was working hard but struggled to really get in the game. Can we get a fast start to a second half for a change. An early goal could change everything.
Bonne for Lapslie. Reasonable change that, glad to see Bows making an early change. Lapslie was working hard but struggled to really get in the game. Can we get a fast start to a second half for a change. An early goal could change everything.
Comments
For instance
Clive Mendonca - History
BFG - Current affairs
Yet both are covered in the museum
It's a very good question though and one to be debated without an objective right answer,
I guess it's all about the historiography and what is relevant to the person considering the question.
Fact.
The moment something has happened its in the past and is therefore history
In literal terms, as already said, anything that has happened is history.
Hindsight, of course, is wonderful, and it really pees me off when I think of my attitude at that time.
History now absolutely fascinates me. I've a particular interest in WWI (bolstered by a few humbling trips to the Ypres salient), and the events surrounding the holocaust are also of great interest (if that's the correct phraseology?).
Have even discovered a new found curiosity in the monarchy, because I get really annoyed when I watch 'The Chase' and don't know some of the answers to the questions covering that topic! The period around the 'reformation' is fascinating.
As my folks always said, "you must try harder at school"!!
As a secondary school History teacher for nearly all of my career, I found the limitations of the examination syllabi, and National Curriculum in later years, very frustrating.
After school, so many adults seem to return to and enjoy history of all kinds. The human story element seems to have been squeezed out of history in schools for the pursuit of source recognition and bias etc. Very worthy and valuable, but so is the human story.
FWIW I think it’s fifty years but I can see the arguments given here are all valid.
This is an approach I’ve been involved in recently
https://www.parallelhistories.org.uk/
I'm not interested enough to look, but I would imagine that according the Cambridge or Oxford dictionaries the word 'history' would have lots of meanings.
Try finding a definition that's not number based and you've a better chance of finding one that's not arbitrary.