| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What the difference? history/current affairs
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


What the difference? history/current affairs

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1977
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What the difference? history/current affairs
    Posted: 13 Mar 2017 at 21:01
This is a simple question to ask.
There are probably better answers and worse answers, but probably not any definitive right answer.

What is the difference between history and current affairs?  When does a current affair cease to be current.  And when does a current affair become history?  Does it change over night?  or is there a time period where an event is in-between the two.  Is it different for different kinds of events?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Clap
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 06:28
Mate, I would have thought that it was obvious.

If it aint current, it's history, unless it's future.

It ceases to be current immediately that it isn't, and it then becomes history.

Nope, I don't see it being different for different types of events.

It's like time. There's only three kinds, past, present and future-unless of course you believe that time is in fact circular. Now that's entirely different matter.

If time is circular, tomorrow could in fact be the past, and yesterday could easily become the future....I think.Confused
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 07:45
Events like elections can go on and on, stories about politics that have no new information repeated daily. 

New Ponzi schemes, at least 3 being flashed before the Bilderbergs at the SEC. Is it history or a current event that the Securities Exchange Commission doesn't listen to Harry Markopolos when he warns them about these lying thieves?


The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 11:20
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Events like elections can go on and on, stories about politics that have no new information repeated daily. 

New Ponzi schemes, at least 3 being flashed before the Bilderbergs at the SEC. Is it history or a current event that the Securities Exchange Commission doesn't listen to Harry Markopolos when he warns them about these lying thieves?


When you refer to lying thieves, are you referring to the Bilderbergs.

If you are, and if the conspiracy theory which exists in relation to the Bilderbergs, Knights of Columbus, Illuminati etc and a New World Order is true, then perhaps senior members of the SEC could be members of the Bilderbergs.

And that's both history and current affairs.

Would you like to start another conversation about the Conspiracy Theories, Bilderbergs, Knights and so on, I'd be a keen participant.



I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 17:24
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Events like elections can go on and on, stories about politics that have no new information repeated daily. 

New Ponzi schemes, at least 3 being flashed before the Bilderbergs at the SEC. Is it history or a current event that the Securities Exchange Commission doesn't listen to Harry Markopolos when he warns them about these lying thieves?


When you refer to lying thieves, are you referring to the Bilderbergs.

If you are, and if the conspiracy theory which exists in relation to the Bilderbergs, Knights of Columbus, Illuminati etc and a New World Order is true, then perhaps senior members of the SEC could be members of the Bilderbergs.

And that's both history and current affairs.

Would you like to start another conversation about the Conspiracy Theories, Bilderbergs, Knights and so on, I'd be a keen participant.




Yes toyomotor, the Securities and Exchange Commission is the entity that is supposed to stop people like Bernie Maydoff and listen to investigators like Harry Markopolis when they provide proof of financial crimes for 8 years. Seems like it's both current and historical.

It was also proven that people within the SEC had to actively help Maydoff to falsify financial documents in order for the Ponzi scheme to work. 

I call the SEC 'Bilderberg' in a mocking, dystopian recognition of their corruption. 
I'm game for conspiracy thread.


Edited by Vanuatu - 14 Mar 2017 at 17:27
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 17:49
Bernie Madoff got, I think, 150 years in prison.

It could have been worse, he could have been sentenced to life in prison.Clap
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1977
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 21:31
150 years is worse than life in prison, if you have life in prison, usually there is possibility of parole.  I am not sure that happens with a 150 year sentence.

Ok, there are certain people who write on current affairs, and certain people who write on history.  For an event (pick an event), when does it go from the first category to the second?  
And is there a time when the event is in limbo?  The topic is too recent in memory to be history.  But the topic is also far enough away so that it is not a current event.  What do you call that?
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2017 at 22:55
9/11 attacks come to mind. I think it's too recent to be history bc there are so many people old enough to have lived during the attacks. 
It's not current because for most people it's over, unless you follow the conspiracy truth. 
It's a gestalt-
An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.


Edited by Vanuatu - 14 Mar 2017 at 22:57
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2017 at 00:31
Quote An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.

Isn't that the definition of synergy?
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1977
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2017 at 21:14
"gestalt" is one those words, then when I look it up, it slowly trickles out my ear, until I am ignorant of it again.  I don't think that the definition Vanuatu gives matches "synergy," because the roots of synergy are "syn" meaning "together" or "with" in Greek, and "egon" meaning "work."  But, I also don't necessarily know the meaning of synergy.  You might look it up in a dictionary.

For different people, something becomes history at different times, if you talk to a Greek or a Turk, they might still be fretting over the Persian (or Trojan) War.  To them it is still a current affair.  For an American it is more out of sight out of mind.

I have this theory of world peace, for a foreigner if it is a choice between giving up an ancestral grudge or explaining why it should still go on to an American, the foreign will usually give up the ancestral grudge because that is easier than explaining it to the clueless American.  Of course, what happens when the ancestral grudge is against the American, I don't know.  World peace through shallowness, maybe.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2017 at 00:49
franciscosan-

Quote "Synergy defined-
the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions,etc.; synergism."


Which is exactly what Vanuatu and I said.

In simple terms, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.




Edited by toyomotor - 16 Mar 2017 at 00:51
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2017 at 12:39
Yes. The thought was for me, 9/11 happened and innumerable connected events also shaped the perception of the event. If you have Saudis hustled on a plane and whisked away on 9/11 it's barely a news story. The US would probably have gotten dignitaries out when others would be kept here.

If at some point in the future there is a connection proven with the Saudis (other than that most of the hijackers were Saudis) that part of the whole will have changed perceptions even though that truth was known to exist under our current accepted version of events. 

Only the relevance of that piece would change so the "part" is going to produce a different effect on the whole, meaning that the whole is more than the sum its parts, systems are not static so the gestalt or synergy would be redefined at times as we often do in history.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 12:24
Vanuatu- Say what???

Would you like to rephrase your post so that a poor simpleton like me can understand it?

I don't get your equation of 9/11 in relation to synergy.

It was an act of infamy, deserving the highest possible retaliation, and if that means blowing the crap out of Saudi Oil Fields, so be it.

The sooner Al Queada and it's bastard child ISIS are bombed out of existance, the better.

Past presidential reluctance to put boots on the ground is a pity. We need the Coalition of the Willing to mount all out war against these groups, and any others which they my have spawned, in order to make the world a safer place. To not do so only escalates the various conflicts, costing more in assetts and collateral damage-and isn't that a disgraceful term for the loss of innocent lives?

Perhaps the world could then concentrate on the human tragedy that is Africa.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Mar 2017 at 14:31
franciscosan said:

"Ok, there are certain people who write on current affairs, and certain people who write on history.  For an event (pick an event), when does it go from the first category to the second?  
And is there a time when the event is in limbo?  The topic is too recent in memory to be history.  But the topic is also far enough away so that it is not a current event.  What do you call that?"

Ok so I say it's a gestalt, you said that's the definition of synergy. I don't disagree ( but it slightly different from my thinking). 
Anyway when does an event stop being a current event and become history ? 

I said 9/11 comes to mind bc it's too soon to be history etc.. my point was not about the nature of the event or the struggles afterward. The comment was on the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts, a gestalt. 

Part of that gestalt was the Saudis being shuttled out of US very quickly on 9/11. Right? It was all just information in those first weeks following the attacks.
Assume there were subversive actions or involvement on 9/11 by the Saudis for a moment -which are unknown today (to public at large) and then tomorrow it's become known without doubt that Saudis plotted 9/11 and then those facts are accepted as part of the whole.

Then, the fact that the Saudis were whisked away, out of the country when no other air traffic was permitted by the US government would change the sum of those parts. The historical view of the event would be different and greater than the current "whole." The single fact about Saudis exiting the country with the aid of US government could potentially change the perception of 9/11 at any point. Adding that sum to the whole effectively exceeds the addition of one fact. 100 yrs later it could be called the beginning of the end of the Muslim religion, the beginning of the end of jihad, the end of the two party system of government in US who knows?

And you are preaching to the choir about ISIS. Yes I would much rather use most of our foreign aid to help ease the suffering in Africa rather than providing military protection for Japan, Israel and Germany. I hope I've explained myself,  & thanks for letting me clear that up I see why it didn't make sense.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3584
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 11:04
Vanuatu

Sorry, I can't agree with you on the definition of history.

The fact that 9/11 occurred in living memory doesn't preclude it from being history. Hurrican Katrina is history, DJT's election is history.

Something can't and doesn't become history after, say, ten years. It's history immediately the event concludes.

It can't be any other way. If it's happening now, it's current, the present. If it's yet to happen,it's the future.

Quote The comment was on the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts, a gestalt.

When talking about an event, any event, it must be the whole event, unless some part of the event is specified. Was the fact that some Saudis fled the USA immediately following the 9/11 attack part of the event? I don't think so. It was part of a series of events which followed the attack. The aftermath of an outrageous conspiracy which came to fruition.

The fleeing of the Saudis is also now history. It's not taking place now, it's not about to happen in the future so it must be history.

An event is just that, a stand alone, although it may well be part of a set of circumstances wich comprise a greater event. It is those circumstances which may result in synergy-the result is greater than the sum of the smaller parts which contributed to the event.

N'cest pas?
¿no es así?
isn't that right?

You've no doubt heard the expression,"He's/she's history?" colloquially it's use is incorrect, unless of course
 they're dead, in which case they have become part of history.


Edited by toyomotor - 20 Mar 2017 at 11:08
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 12:05
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Vanuatu

Sorry, I can't agree with you on the definition of history.

The fact that 9/11 occurred in living memory doesn't preclude it from being history. Hurrican Katrina is history, DJT's election is history.

Something can't and doesn't become history after, say, ten years. It's history immediately the event concludes.

It can't be any other way. If it's happening now, it's current, the present. If it's yet to happen,it's the future.

Quote The comment was on the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts, a gestalt.

When talking about an event, any event, it must be the whole event, unless some part of the event is specified. Was the fact that some Saudis fled the USA immediately following the 9/11 attack part of the event? I don't think so. It was part of a series of events which followed the attack. The aftermath of an outrageous conspiracy which came to fruition.

The fleeing of the Saudis is also now history. It's not taking place now, it's not about to happen in the future so it must be history.

An event is just that, a stand alone, although it may well be part of a set of circumstances wich comprise a greater event. It is those circumstances which may result in synergy-the result is greater than the sum of the smaller parts which contributed to the event.

N'cest pas?
¿no es así?
isn't that right?

You've no doubt heard the expression,"He's/she's history?" colloquially it's use is incorrect, unless of course
 they're dead, in which case they have become part of history.

I think it's less a disagreement and more like talking past a subtle nuance. Truly I do think of yesterday's news as just that-it's history. Franciscosan brings up an good point about continuity. The Jihadist are still living in the mentality of the 7th century which is a gestalt, the whole made of parts. The particular properties of those parts provide the essence of the whole. 

A dog in a park in NYC probably has an owner chasing him with a plastic bag to clean up. Kids playing, someone selling hot dogs-gestalt

A dog in China probably is living in a  battery cage, like those used here for chickens. No one is cleaning up after that dog, he's being force fed to become someone's lunch. Someone is counting their money to see if they can buy dog for lunch-gestalt 

President Clinton signed NAFTA in 1993-History

NAFTA was a huge mistake that continues to drive down wages for US workers-Current

I believe that is the distinction that can exist as a perception for individuals and groups. For the purpose of exploring those distinctions, 9/11 could be seen as an unfolding event when new information changes the existing gestalt. IMHO of course. 
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Windemere View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Windemere Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 15:00
I'd say that topics that are being reported on the television news, or written about in newspapers or magazines, are current affairs. Once they begin to be written about in  textbooks, and taught in classes in school, they become history. I think that there's probably a bit of overlap in between, though.
Dis Aliter Visum
"Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1977
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Mar 2017 at 21:08
I think that when the last of generation, or the last survivors die off, that is a dramatic indication that it is now history.  The last of the survivors of WWI, or the last of the Civil War veterans brides (much younger, married the older veterans of the Civil War).  The old woman in the Titanic, who is supposedly the young gal?  (I haven't seen the movie, but I know how it ends.  The boat sank, right?).  Something like the WTC is for many a tragedy, but when the people who directly remember it, die off, it will be history.  It was a tragedy that so many young men died in WWI, but nobody alive today remembers that tragedy first hand.  Someday, not too soon, we will get to the last veteran of WWII.  

Presidencies are not properly assessed until you get some distance on it.  Windemere, I tend to think that it gets written about _because_ it is history, not that it is history, _because_ it is written about.  Not saying that you are implying that, but wanted to be clear.  Professors, academics and scholars who are historians are somewhat reluctant to get into events that are too current, because "the dust hasn't yet settled."  I think the discovery and death of "deep throat" in Watergate, was the sign of the era passing.  Maybe just the nail on the coffin.

There is the notion that a nation is responsible for the safety of foreigners in their country, apart from everyday 'random' crime.  So yes, if they weren't lawbreakers then getting the Saudis out was a civilized thing to do.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.