I reviewed a discussion entitled “Most Influential Events in American History” on the History Channel’s website http://boards.historychannel.com/forum.jsp?forum=30069.
While most of the proposed events appear to be typical responses - most involve major events such as wars, inventions, assassinations and Presidential elections - the surprising aspects are the reasons why people found these events important. For example, one participant argued that Hitler was the most influential person in U.S. history because he started a war that resulted in “the invention of many new and crucial things including radar” which helped bring the U.S. out of a depression that we still might otherwise be experiencing. After this statement a somewhat bizarre discussion centered on the question of whether or not it mattered that Hitler was not personally responsible for the technological advances in question ensued. Several people agreed (within this discussion and in other discussions about WWII) that it is possible that the U.S. would still be the middle of the Great Depression if not for WWII. Granted, it is incredibly difficult to imagine what the world would be like today if there never was a WWII; but to think that the country today would closely resemble 1939 seems rather extreme.
Most people who participated in this discussion did not list a biography of themselves so I couldn’t conclude who, in terms of demographics, was involved. I could tell that there were few, if any, professional historians. While most participants certainly seemed to be reading popular history books and watching the History Channel, they mostly seemed to think about the course of history in simple and traditional terms. Generally people in this discussion group seemed to think that history is marked by a few major events which drastically alter the world. I know that this particular topic might condition people to respond in this way, but there didn’t appear to be a lot of sophistication in the way in which most people in this group think about history. One participant suggested that perhaps there is no one most influential moment in history because every event is shaped by preceding events, but this comment was totally ignored by others.
This discussion attracted first time participants and as well as those who have contributed to History Channel discussions hundreds and even thousands of times. While this particular discussion has only been underway since early October, I found evidence of a loose community (also, I noticed that several of the respondents posted messages on other History Channel message boards so some of these people have been talking with one another for a while). It appears that those who repeatedly communicate with one other are more willing to compliment each other’s comments and affect each other’s opinions. At the same token, regular participants who often vehemently disagreed with one another seemed more willing to launch personal attacks (one regular participant couldn’t refrain from calling another “a Kerry loving terrorist” (and the discussion didn’t even have anything to do with contemporary politics)). People who corresponded with one another more frequently were also more willing to offer each other help. For example, when one regular participant stated that he wasn’t familiar with a number of court cases that someone else sited, a few people wrote back with lengthy explanations of the cases. Newcomers seemed to have a harder time receiving similar kind of help.
I do think online discussion groups serve purposes that are not provided by other media (or at least not provided easily or extensively by other media). None of the participants who listed their profession were working within the field of history; discussion boards might be the only place where some of these people talk about their interest in history. Furthermore, discussion boards offer people the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who are interested in very specific things.
While online communities may not be as close as some other types of communities, they can represent “real” communities. There were a few instances where a participant would post a reflection or a question and state that he or she was particularly interested in hearing back from a specific person. Frequent participants get to know one another and clearly expect to communicate with one another, even if it is in a limited sense.