How far back do you have to go to avoid "current politics"...
- Thread starter Erin Go Bragh
- Start date
Its variable. Its not just about the author but what the comments are about.
An Obama timeline will mention his vice president which will drag the topic onto current politics whatever you mean to do.
You can go back to cave man days.. but even then you get into dietary and gender issues.
I think the mods should rename this forum "1900-2000" and just ban every POD dating after January 1st, 2000.
That still leaves a few sensitive twentieth century subjects that I think should be subjects of legitimate historical controversy, but for some reason aren't, so those still get handled case to case. There is also a problem in that in the USA, elite turnover in the early 21st century was notably low, so you have lots of current pols (in 2022) who were active in the 1980s. I think you just ignore what they would be doing in the 21st century.
That still leaves a few sensitive twentieth century subjects that I think should be subjects of legitimate historical controversy, but for some reason aren't, so those still get handled case to case. There is also a problem in that in the USA, elite turnover in the early 21st century was notably low, so you have lots of current pols (in 2022) who were active in the 1980s. I think you just ignore what they would be doing in the 21st century.
1900 to 2000 makes pretty reasonable sense, since we can still cover 2000+ in another section. Generally speaking we seem to be accepting of a few years before 1900 so a few years after 2000 is unlikely to cause a stir.
9/11 was 21 years ago, would it still be classified as current politics?
Good point.
Maybe the current set up is better than I'd realised.
The reason this prohibition exists, in my understanding, is to prevent flame wars between members who can’t discuss current politics in a civil manner. Because someone like that will always show up to a discussion about current politics, such threads are closed preemptively. So, a more vague and longer but more accurate warning could be: any topic that will get members arguing about current politics is forbidden. If you posted in the before 1900 forum “What if the original 1788 Constitution banned civilian gun ownership?”, the thread would degenerate into a Donnybrook immediately.
When my friend was studying modern history at Oxford it essentially began with the withdrawal of the legions and I think the fall of Constantinople was still a sore point
Perhaps just extend that to 2009? Just to be safe, and that's not really "modern" is it?
I beg to differ on this one. From a eurocentric or americanocentric point of view this might be the case, however when it comes to what is actually going on in the world and what can be considered "current politics", the War in Ethiopia is of way more relevance than the effects of the Great Depression on the United States of America.
Also, a list of topics considered Controversial and likely to be moved to chat (e.g the second amendment) would be a good suggestion. It also makes sense for people to broaden the geographical and social range of topics they're interested in, even if it means learning about "last year's African war" or "1930s fashion"
I asked this a long time ago. I was told there isn't a specific date. it's about bringing up current issues.
marathag
Banned
I wish it was from 1820 to 1991, Industrial Revolution to the end of the USSR, with another post 1991 group
I avoid discussing current politics here. I discuss the history.
You give that premise, as an example. But it is very implausible. They didn't want and couldn't afford a standing army. A well regulated militia, with privately owned weapons was needed. Also hunting wasn't a sport, or hobby then. It was an important food source.