Is there such a thing as objective historical distance? Does 25 years guarantee an evincing of "factual data" or linear historicized truths any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment" would?
25 years ago marked the end of the Cold War era; it think that is why it was chosen.
>>37270
>any more legitimate than the bias of the "moment"
Of course they're more legitimate. More data can be scrutinised by various people from differing backgrounds. At the same time if you leave things too late then you have people with completely alien cultural standards making moral judgements and making basic errors.
>>37270
There's no clear cutoff date, of course, but yes, generally more recent events fall under political science category.
No, the Second World War ended 70 years ago and people in my country are still arguing over it.
>>37270
25 years opens the archives. And with 10 year archives it means that one generation of historians has managed to write about it and be abused roundly for their errors in the journals.
>>37270
There is no objective historical distance, it's all relative.
>>37307
I should clear up that by "moment" I mean the site of immediate recall. Say the expropriation of Ukraine; there's a simultaneous recalling of a past inheritance and a present mythmaking curtailed by media, commentators, historians, political ideologues/spinters, etc, which is inflicting a causal fault on the event. In a sense, it's historicized and assigned a factual structure in the present, which will later be repeated.
>>37299
Accurate: 90 years ago.
Passable: 55 years ago.
Just going for some extra threads: 25 years ago.
>>37270
As a communist I would say that only when under communism we could have a good and objective appreciation of history. Today history is a "science" in the hands of the ruling class.
>>37573
the alienated objects of our labour, even in communism, are not independent of ourselves and are not good in themselves.
Hitherto the historians have sought to document history, the point is to create it.
>>37938
the act of documentation is at once one of eventualization, you can't document without espousing the double bind of a materialization of a lost object. history is the practice of both melancholy and pure scopophilic perversion. we are already always creating, that's the real kernel of dialectical materialism, the problem is in imprinting the stamp of ontological content and pretending it was always immanent to the historical object itself.
Real history doesn't start until after everyone who was alive during that time of interest has died off. Only then when there's no one personally attached to those experiences can historians go and objectively judge what happened and the causes and effects surrounding it.
>>37938
I was using the word good to say of good quality. But you're right it's good for a pov there is no absolute good.
>>38408
History is an alienated object of labor? You have to explain what you mean. I failed to understand.
>>38408
it's both documentation and eventualization is what i meant, maybe i expressed it a little inaccurately. don't be such a shitter, it's not shitposting because you missed the point.
>>38522
There is a qualitative difference between the alienated epistemology of producing documents based on the documentary records of the past, and the praxic epistemology of the start of man's real history.
>>38488
The production of history, the documenting of the documentary records of the past, is an alien object. Writing a monograph is like making a car. Even in communism, writing a monograph or making a car is about alienating your own human endeavour from yourself, it is a process of individual externalisation. Producing history involves an imperfect cognitive act, just as producing a car involves an imperfect cognitive act. Making history, and making the society that produces monographs and cars, in communism involves praxis amongst groups of people exceeding themselves, and is qualitatively different.
Making a car isn't liberating. Making liberation together (through making a car, or writing a book) is very different.
