This may be a challenge for the mods as to what forum it belongs to.
A horse (Apache Cat) in Australia won a a major race for the second year in a row. The headlines proclaimed thus:
Apache Cat makes history with 2nd Doomben 10,000
It then states:
The baldy-faced chestnut equalled the deeds of Black Onyx (1969-70), Prince Trialia (1990-91) and Falvelon (2001-02)
How can that be making history if it has been achieved three times before? Unless the argument is that by doing anything you are making history- such as me making such a frivilous post.
It’s a legitimate usage. The horse did something that has been done very rarely. Even if there were others, it’s still a very exclusive list.
And, of course, there is no hard and fast definition of the term “makes history.” It can be used to mean whatever the speaker or writer wants it to mean. Even if the horse only won the race once, you could legitimately say it made history by winning the race, since it become part of the historical record of the sport.
Did Hitler make history when he invaded Poland? After all, thousands of leaders have started wars before.
When I ate cereal this morning, I made history. It’s just that it’s not very interesting. This particular horse made interesting history, which is usually implied by the phrase. It needn’t be unique to be considered history, just interesting.
The Doomben 10000 was also won twice by Chief de Beers (1995 and 1998). This achievement really did make history because no other horse has regained the prize since the inception of the event in 1933.
I dislike headlines like the one you report, legitimate or not. The eight year old Yeats has reeled off three Ascot Gold Cups (2006, 2007, 2008) and is going for his fourth next month. No other horse has ever managed this feat.
If he wins, that’s my kind of history.
I have to agree with the OP. I consider making history to have a narrower meaning that just doing something historical. In my opinion, the term implies you’re doing something that’s never happened before.