# data[].attributes.body
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

A worldwide impact, breaking scientific discoveries, having future affects

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.

Yes because symbolic effects have a greater effect on people

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?

noteworthy consequences or effects could help create a memorable event

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?

The event can be both because, depending on the situation, either can be important in its own way

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?

I feel drastic global repercussions are not necessary because, as experienced before, repercussions can only make situations worse

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

911 will always be considered an important event throughout American history.

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

Kremlin plans to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” because “Russia remains too divided over the consequences of that fateful year,” but the more official reason is that the Russian rule despises revolution.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

The Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history is a sense of national dignity. The Russian Revolution does not fit neatly into that narrative because chaos would not help his goal.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

I believe it means they are repeating history.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  It has an impact on a large number of people which affects today's society.

2.  I think that it should be symbolic because all historic events have a deep meaning to some people and it is important to learn about them.

3. I think that a historic event should have noteworthy consequences or effects to some extent so that people will know about it and learn about it.

4. I think that it should be unifying because people should all learn from their mistakes and work together.

5. i do not think that global repercussions are necessary.

6. 9/11 will still be important

Part 2
1.  The offical reason is that the country is too divided and they encourage division. Putin might be more afraid of any reveloution in fear of being overthrown.

2.  He thinks that Russia is trying to be very friendly and all and that the foreigns are the attackes. It doesnt fit into the narrative because they dont have individual heros.

3. I think that in some ways we live in historic schizophrenia

# data[].attributes.body
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering is the affect it has on the society during that time.

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.

It should be symbolic because it will help people remember the importance of it. Although, I do not think it should represent larger ideals.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?

I think it should have noteworthy consequences and/or effects because that is the only way people will remember it.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?

It should be unifying for the society toady and into the future so they do not repeat their mistakes.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?

I think global repercussions are not necessary because the people already know what has happened in the past.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

9/11 will always be considered important in 100 years because that was a time in history where are country lost many innocent lives from an unexpected attack.

Article:
1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

The Kremlin plans to sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution because "The official reason proffered for ignoring the event is that Russia remains too divided over the consequences of that fateful year."

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

The preferred narrative of Russian history is "The latter fits the Kremlin narrative that Russia has long been besieged by foreign aggressors and that the West strives to implant friendly governments everywhere by sponsoring “color revolutions.” Columnists have been lumping 1917 among more recent color revolutions in places like Georgia and Ukraine, naturally listing the United States among the suspected agitators."

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

It means our society has altered history throughout the years. I am not sure what I agree with. I think the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia" because some people are starting to justify the actions of slavery and segregation. When all along it has always been wrong and bad and we will always be wrong and bad.

# data[].attributes.body
part 1.
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

Impacts a large number of people and affects how society is today

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
Yes, for example : the Titanic impacted a large number of people who lost their lives while taking a risk and venturing to the new world.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
I wouldn't say that there necessarily has to have consequences but it should have a significant effect on the daily lives of a group of people.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
I personally do not believe it has to completely unify the entire world  s some of the biggest events in history have been extremely divisive amongst certain groups of people, however, it should have some element of unification amongst smaller groups of people.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
I think the event should make people all over the globe more aware of the event and the reasons that the event was caused and how to continue with these actions or how to prevent them in the future.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?
9/11 impacted the entire world as it made everyone more aware of extremists and terrorism, more specifically terrorism that hasn't had the publicity that 9/11 had.
---- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ---
part 2.
1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?”
They want to avoid further discord amongst the Russian people.
What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
Putin despises revolutions.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
They were all marching for greatness, this represents nationalism and a strong front for Russia when in reality there was a revolution.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

I think it means that when a country  is at loss of how to handle a situation they fall back on old tactics that have failed in the past but it is easier to do old things than to attempt to handle the situation in new more creative ways. I think all countries do this.

# data[].attributes.body
What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
If it made an impact on people's lives, and impacting a large group of people.

*Should the event be symbolic?
Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
It doesn't have to, but the more popular historic events always have a double meaning.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
Yes.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
It can be both.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
Either.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?
9/11

1. Because they are too divided.
2. They are looking for heroic peoples to celebrate, and the Russian Revolution doesn't have many singular heroes.
3. "We live in historical schizophrenia," means that we shut down any kind of revolt, which means we are just repeating history.

# data[].attributes.body
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
- When it affects a large number of people or a way of life, etc.

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
- Yes. An example could be the beginning of a revolution, or an event that sparks an idea in the mind of a population.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
- Yes, even if it is a small action that simply results in larger events taking place.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
- Both. If it enriches the quality of a discussion, or provides insight, then it is ok if it is divisive.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
-Not necessarily, because it could affect a large number of a population drastically but not affect an entire continent and still be an important event.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

- 9/11

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
-Russia remains too divided after the events that occurred in 1917. However, the more likely reason is that President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't like the idea of revolution, nor the idea of his people celebrating overthrowing a ruler.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
-They prefer to view it as a "long, unified march to greatness." Their narrative is meant to encourage nationalism. The Russian Revolution doesn't fit into this narrative because the revolution was the end of 'Great Russia,' and ceased Russia's development.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

- Because there are so many contradicting messages provided by their history and current events. It seems to fit the mindset of young Russians. The U.S. is similar because here, we have Confederate monuments, yet also have a general agreement that they were in the wrong in the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
A historical event is important if it affects a large group of people or provides some sort of significance that needs to be remembered to the world.
The event should represent some sort of larger ideals. It should be important to a lot of people for a good reason; whether it affected many people or it shares a lesson that needs to be taught to people.
Yes, the event should have effects. The actual event is important, but the ramifications of it are the things that will truly prove its importance.
The event can be either unifying or divisive. Just because something divides people doesn't mean it doesn't have important effects.
It's definitely important if it does have global repercussions, but it doesn't necessarily have to have them. As long as it teaches an important lesson about humanity, it's important.
9/11. This is an incredibly important event because it affected many people and it also proved the true threat of terrorism.

The Kremlin believe or at least publicly express that they don't want to cause more division by celebrating the holiday. The article suggests that Putin doesn't want to celebrate the fact that a ruler was overthrown; they shouldn't get any ideas.
The Kremlin believe that Russia has been "besieged by foreign aggressors", meaning that foreigners are to blame. However, the fact that many of the leaders in the Russian revolution were bad people, means that Russia has to accept some of the blame.
It means that their history doesn't follow a perfect linear line. It's a bit all over the place and doesn't have a clear storyline. I think that this is true of Russian history; it's not a perfect story and it is confusing, though very interesting. The US definitely shares this, though Russia more so because of its political unrest in its government. Other states that suffer from political uncertainty most likely also share this.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
A historical event must affect a wide group of people in order for people to know about it. A historical event usasally changes something or had a effect on people.

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
The event sshould show and represents ideas of the people. It should symbolize what people belive. this is not always the case.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
An event must have noteworthy effects in order for people to know about it. Also, a lot of improntant events have had consequences.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
It can be both. It can be unifiying a diverce group of people. It was be a coloniy trying to get independence.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
That is not really necessary. It should only affect some people in order to get the point across. But sometimes we need to take drastic mesures in order to get the point across. For example, global warming. It effects the whole world and we still are not doing anything about it.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?
9/11 will be very imporntant. It changed America's airport sicurity system foreever. But the negitive affects were people being rasicst to people form the middle east. The 2016 election. It changed politics forever. It reshapped what it meant to be a demacrat:) or a republican. Trump is a stupid bully and I hate him. Also the March For Our Lves movement has goven student a chance to feel powerful. Also a chance to state thier opinion and stop school shootings.

Part 2:
1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
The country is very divided and Putin does not like revolution. it scares him. He has a fear that he too will be overthrown.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
He does not like revolution and belived that Russia was better before the revolution. It does not fit into the catigory because he does not like revolution.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

They mean that we live in a crazy time. Everyday we are makingin history and not in a good way. I kinda agree. Russia is repressive. The world is kind of in historical schisophrenic. there are good parts. But now our political climate it brutle.

# data[].attributes.body
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
If it impacts how society is today and  affects lots of people.

*Should the event be symbolic?
Yes because the event should be more important than just the event itself.
Should it represent larger ideals?
No because all events in history cannot possibly be perfect.  Explain.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
Yes because if the event does not has consequences or effects there is no reason for anyone to remember something that didn't change anything.

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
I think it can be either because both hold historical significance.

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
No because if it does not affect the entire world it is still important.

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

9/11 will be considered important 100 years from now.

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
Because Putin does not want any revolution. Because Russia is still very divided. The first reason is more likely.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
His prefered narrative is that the foreigners are the aggressors and Russia is trying to be friendly. It doesn't fit into this narrative because they don't have any singular heroic figures.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways
I think it means that when a country is in chaos they fall back to old habits. I agree with this characterization of Russia. I think other countries live in this as well because they all fall back into old habits that create historical chaos.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Historical events that have a big change make the historical event important. Also events that have lots of deaths are worthy of remembrance. Historical events changed the path to the present and future.
2. I think the events should be symbolic. All events have a meaning and a lesson that was learned from.
3. Events should have noteworthy consequences or effects. Many events killed many people and these people should be remembered. Also the people who brought on the event in a bad way should be punished.
4. I think that events should be unifying. It should bring people together and they should learn from their mistakes together.
5. I think that they should not have global repercussions. It should only have a major effect on the people that are in it. But I think that other countries should learn from it.
6. 9/11.
7. The Russian people are questioning the event, so having this event would produce some conflicts.
8. Russians want to avoid further division in the country. "the Kremlin’s version of Russian history as a long, unified march to greatness, meant to instill a sense of national pride and purpose."
9. Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history is for Russia to be united and together. But they are not much together.
10. “We live in historical schizophrenia,” means that they live in a historical metal disorder. Schizophrenia, " affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves". I kinda think that this has to do with Russia but not fully. I think that the US and other countries did in the past.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
A historical event is important and worth remembering when it affects a significant amount of people and when the structure of the world would have been very different without the event.

2. Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
The event doesn't necessarily need to be symbolic, but the causes of the physicals event may be indicative of greater values or ambitions among the people involved.

3. Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
Yes, the event should have caused some sort of change for a significant group of people or place.

4. Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
I think it could be either. It could be unifying in the sense of bringing understanding and communication, but also divisive in that it creates barriers between people and countries across the world.

5. Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
Not necessarily global repercussions, but at least regional repercussions. It should change a way of life from what it previously was.

6. Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?  911

7. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
The official reason is that reminders of the revolutions divide the country and encourage division. The more likely reason is that Putin is afraid of any revolution whatsoever and is seeking to avoid inciting one.

8. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
The Kremlin's narrative claims that foreign countries caused their revolutions, whereas the Russian Revolution was actually caused by internal anger and ineffective leaders.

9. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways
It means that the story of Russian history is complicated and has outside contributing factors which affected it. In some ways, the U.S. lives in "historical schizophrenia" because out history is entwined with many other countries and events, but we are still very young.

love, nadia

# data[].attributes.body
What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

If we learned something. If it is something to not repeat. The dates and names of history aren't always the reason why they should be remembered. If the event happened for a reason and it was not something to be repeated then what caused it is a good thing to remember. By knowing the events that lead up to it, we can prevent a repeat.

Should the event be symbolic?

It could be. It isn't necessary. But if it is symbolic, and what it symbolized is important then it could be.

Should it represent larger ideals?

That's kinda similar to being symbolic. And like I said. The small dates and names aren't usually the point. The bigger picture is usually the point. We don't want another world war so when the second ended, we didn't do what we did after the first.

Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?

Yes. I think that the moments in history that are remembered usually are accompanied by consequences. If the event didn't cause anything, then what's the point in remembering. Of course if you're curious then that's great but it isn't a key part. People who don't find history enthralling simply need to know the wisdom found in history. Learning from mistakes is necessary but not every action is a mistake and some actions don't have noteworthy consequences. Those actions aren't worth studying out of necessity but out of curiosity.

Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?

Well, it depends on the goal. Of course unity is beautiful but no two people are the exact same of have the same beliefs. There are no rights or wrongs and no line that divides the two. Everyone's views are different so unity would only lead to eventual chaos. However intentional divisions where each person is placed and expected to stay where they are would be destructive as well, people change. There is no perfect answer and so far there has been no perfect middle. So, it doesn't matter if it is unifying or divisive, neither are perfect, and so far one has not been found to be better than the other.

Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?

That's no necessary. Even events on a small scale can teach you something about the large scale. There is no certain size mistake that is more deserving of recognition than others. The small ones can become bigger if nobody learns from them just like children who take their emotions out in the wrong way and aren't taught how will become adults who an do more harm.

Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

The wall at the border. I don't know what's going on with that because I'm not great at following the news and try not to have my opinions swayed by my grandparents. BUT if it is built it will definitely have consequences whether good or bad I don't know. But it will definitely do something, and that will probably become more important in 100 years.

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

Russian people don't come to a consensus over whether the event was positive or negative. However it is most likely that Putin doesn't want the idea or revolution. He despises the thought of people celebrating overthrowing their ruler.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

Kremlin prefers to think of it as a "march to greatness" and as a beautiful and necessary event. But many people believe that is was the end to evolution.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

I think it means that we are not in touch with history. We don't understand the importance. I think the US is as well. I certainly don't always have the appreciation I do. Ant I don't always understand why it's important.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
1. Historical events that involve important figures in history, a fight for freedom or equality are very important. Like World War II, thousands of people dedicated their lives to fighting for their country, which is worth remembering decades later.
2. I think the event should be symbolic, especially for the people. All events should have a deep meaning, so that others later can learn the significance of the event.
3. It should not have to have larger ideals because not every event will be perfect in history. It isn't necessary for every event.
4. Yes, because the impact is greater with larger consequences. It will stand out to those that want to make a change or prevent what happened in the end of this event.
5. I believe that the event should be unifying because it teaches those that are not interested in history that unification is important as an end result.  It does not necessarily have to be unifying though because the event may be more interesting without agreement.
6. Yes, it should have an affect on the world, so that this specific event is known world-wide. It will affect a greater amount of people if the consequences have spread.
7. The March for Our Lives is very important because of the amount of school shootings during this time period. I believe that in the future, more and more people will want to prevent this problem  so that it does not resurface.
Part 2:
1. They plan to sit out the centenary because the country is divided, and Putin does not like revolution.
2. The Russians did not like the idea of revolution, especially Putin. Therefore, it fits into the category because of the lack of singular, important figures.
3. I believe it means there is chaos and when countries struggle with new ideas or tactics, they tend to fall back on old ones. I think this represents Russia, and sometimes it represents the U.S. For example, there are conflicts in the government now, which could be similar to this phrase.

# data[].attributes.body
PART 1:
What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

- when an event leads to an impact and growth in the nation and society

Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.

- somewhat. more symbolic events tend to have a greater impact on everyone and give them ideas etc.

Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?

- yes it should. a large event or a small event will both effect the society and lead them to grow

Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?

- the event can be both in the future

Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?

- it is not needed but it could make the rest of the world more aware of the event that took place and made impacts.

Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

- 9/11, MLK speech?

PART 2:
Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

- russia remains very divided after the events that happened in 1917. but the more likely reason is that Putin just doesn't like the idea of revolution, nor the idea of his people celebrating overthrowing a ruler.

What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

- They prefer to look at it as a "long, unified march to greatness." Their narrative is meant to encourage nationalism.

What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways
- I think it means chaos due to historical events

# data[].attributes.body
What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

An historical event is important to remember later because it is how everything started and is going that way and if you don't know how or why it started, you will question it and it won't be as important.

Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals?

Yes, It should make sense in the bigger picture. It should have an impact on the world because if it's not impactful we will be bored and then people will start to think why read about it and think about it if its not impactful.

Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?

Yes, because that is what will be interesting for people. It needs to affect people in a way.

Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?

No, people can disagree, but the event has to be worthy thinking about. It has to be worthy of telling people and worthy of their time.

Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?

The event should affect most people, but not everyone. Not every huge event affects many people. An example, 9/11 affects a huge majority of people, but not every person will think it affects them even though, it affects many people in different ways.

Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

9/11. 9/11 has affected mostly our whole world, even though people don't think it affects them, it affects our technology, security and many others.

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

because it ignored the event that is Russia remains too divided over many or the consequences

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

To them the revolution was death. There was also heroic figurers then which was why they preferred narrative of the Russian history.

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways?

It means that the future will come and that we are waiting to see what happens. It means that this history that is being made right now will be history in many years for the future which will help them in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
*What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?
The impact the event left

*Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
It can be symbolic because of the impact that the event left, and a reminder of the time before the event.

*Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
Yes

*Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
It could be both

*Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
Yes, it could

*Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?
Trump becoming president.
1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways

# data[].attributes.body
1. What makes a historical event important and worthy of remembering decades later?

- A historical event is important because it is what has led the society to where we are at today. It is also important for people to know what has happened before them so that we have a better understanding of why things are the way that they are.

2. Should the event be symbolic? Should it represent larger ideals? Explain.
- It depends because if the event has led the world to events that are happening in the modern day world than it is important to know.

3. Should the event have noteworthy consequences or effects?
-  Yes, because if it is noteworthy then clearly it represents something important that still affects the modern day world.

4. Should the event be unifying, for society today and into the future? Or, can it be divisive?
- it should be unifying

5. Should the event have global repercussions? Or, is that not necessary?
- it is necessary for learning and growing from mistakes in the past.

6. Can you think of an event during the past twenty years that will be considered important 100 years from now?

- 9/11

1. Why does the Kremlin plan to “sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution?” What’s the official reason? What’s the “more likely explanation,” according to the article?
- "President Vladimir V. Putin loathes the very idea of revolution, not to mention the thought of Russians dancing in the streets to celebrate the overthrow of any ruler.

2. What is the Kremlin’s preferred narrative of Russian history? And, why doesn’t the Russian Revolution fit neatly into that narrative?
-He thinks of it as a long, unified march to greatness that is meant to instill a sense of national pride and purpose

3. What does the phrase, “We live in historical schizophrenia,” mean? Do you agree with that characterization of Russia? Do other countries, such as the United States, also live in “historical schizophrenia?” In what ways
-I think it means historical chaos or how it is changing over time.