[Rob Attar]

In our latest issue we print the results of a survey about when people believe events move from current affairs into history. We also include the views of a number of academics on the same question.

But what do you think is the cut-off? Can we really say that the year 1999 should be studied as history? We'd love to know your views.

[ravenna]

As with everything that happens, you need time and space to reflect on events before you really comprehend their signifiance. the history is happening all the time, but especially in our information-rich times you have to filter out some of the noise to hear what's being said.

[Dave Musgrove]

Radio 4's Today Programme just ran a piece on this, which you can listen to here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 331147.stm - it's the last slot of the programme. For some reason the presenter seems to think the whole idea is a bit facile, but we know that history is worth talking about don't we.

[Goat Peter]

History starts.... Now!

Well, then.

[pmerrifield1]

History never ends because what happens today, tomorrow or even next week will be talked about by the next generation and what do in their life time will be talked by the generation after that etc,etc etc.

[bathb0y]

Hi.
A tricky one this! I would (tentatively) suggest History ends when that event has nothing more ""to give"" and all questions and discussions about it have been exhausted, and one sees any further discussions being simply re-hashed. Although the counter-argument to this is that research and the like can go on for hundreds of years afterwards, and that research is perfectly valid. So I suppose something is confined to History when contemporary society can do nothing to change or influence the event, or feel that it doesn't ""belong"" to them and their lives and way's of thinking any more. But in saying this, in order to see the best way for our future's, taking a step back in time is a good idea.

[lost66615]

history ends twhen the universe ends and time stops.history is in the past and does not distinguish for now or 200 yrs only my option

[the reiver]

a tricky one, but what does annoy me is the way that only modern history is being taught in schools. My daughter is currently studying GCSE History. the whole year has been dedicated to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement in America. yet when i speak to my daughter and her friends about the history of this country they have a very limited knowledge having never been taught. it is interesting that they also covered the miners strike. my daughter did get a little confused as she was being taught one thing and as someone who was actively involved in the strike for the year i was able to tell her the truth which differed somewhat from the pro union left wing slant that she was being taught.