Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 887
Huge question I know. But is it possible/necessary/poignant to discuss of history in era's? Is their any real need to?
For example; would it not make sense to refer to more specific backgrounds- e.g. After WWII; Following 9/11; As a result of Napoleon's wars; etc.
Or can they frame a wider perspective, and give us a greater historical understanding; as well as helping history buffs in their tendency for ranking their favorites (a pleasure I hope never to lose)?
Given this; lets have a wide discussion on their relevancy, some ones which are confusing, and as a little guide try and make some lose list of one's commonly referred to (which may just highlight their ability to confuse!)
A few that spring to mind-
1) Baby boom
2)Cold War
3) Post colonialism (Africa etc.)
These are all era's i've heard of to discuss the 40 odd years following WWII; and in historical discussion, other than providing a loose rather interesting frame for the given specific discussion, does it not cloud the issue in discussion, and aid bias in discussion. For example; in regard to the post-colonialism of Africa, by constantly referring to it as a post colonial era, do I not push discussion to negative views of the colonial powers, and looking at how they created and make the situations.
But if i talk of the cold war era situation do i not bias the discussion to talking about how them tensions created the new Africa?
Last edited by Zurvan; 03-20-2011 at 04:41 PM.