Only a remote past is not history but the recent past too which will some day be called history

A point is made why history as it is taught in schools and colleges concerns itself with only remote history,not about what had happened in the recent past before our very eyes.

Interesting question,the answer to which lies perhaps in the distance from which we observe the past events and put them in a linear perspective,one leading causally to others. The remote events are remote enough to yield their outlines to us against other events in their outlines and give us an idea of how one has led to the other,or rather flowed out of the other.

In the case of the recent events we take enough time to understand them as events that have relevance to the course of history, in the way other things flowed out of them,yet other things in time and space. Their hazy outlines are not visible until enough time has lapsed in human memory ,i.e.generations have gone on with the memory of the events embedded in their conscious.