Modern tarih

Çağdaş tarih, yaklaşık 1945'ten günümüze kadar olan tarihi dönemi tanımlayan modern tarihin bir alt kümesidir.[1] Çağdaş tarih, geç modern dönemin bir alt kümesidir ya da erken modern dönem ve geç modern dönemle birlikte modern tarihin üç ana alt kümesinden biridir. Çağdaş tarih terimi, en azından 19. yüzyılın başlarından beri kullanılmaktadır.[2]

Kaynakça

Brivati, Brian (1996). "Introduction". Brivati, Brian; Buxton, Julia; Seldon, Anthony (Edl.). The contemporary history handbook (1st bas.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. s. xvi. ISBN 9780719048364.
Örneğin, Edinburgh review, 12. cilt (1808) p. 480 2 Ocak 2014 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (cf., There is this general distinction between contemporary history and all other history, —that the former is a witness, the latter a judge. The opinions of a contemporary author on the events which he records, are only then authority, when the impression made on a bystander happens to be a material part of the case; nor is this any exception to the maxim, that his business is to testify, not to lecture. On facts, however, he is paramount evidence; and that, not only in the age immediately succeeding him, but also, which is generally forgotten, to the latest times. The modern historian, who consults original authorities through the-medium of some later predecessor, descends from the character of a judge to that of a faithful reporter of decisions.)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] Brivati, Brian (1996). "Introduction". Brivati, Brian; Buxton, Julia; Seldon, Anthony (Edl.). The contemporary history handbook (1st bas.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. s. xvi. ISBN 9780719048364.

[2] Örneğin, Edinburgh review, 12. cilt (1808) p. 480 2 Ocak 2014 tarihinde Wayback Machine sitesinde arşivlendi. (cf., There is this general distinction between contemporary history and all other history, —that the former is a witness, the latter a judge. The opinions of a contemporary author on the events which he records, are only then authority, when the impression made on a bystander happens to be a material part of the case; nor is this any exception to the maxim, that his business is to testify, not to lecture. On facts, however, he is paramount evidence; and that, not only in the age immediately succeeding him, but also, which is generally forgotten, to the latest times. The modern historian, who consults original authorities through the-medium of some later predecessor, descends from the character of a judge to that of a faithful reporter of decisions.)