WhyHistoriansDisagree.docx

1、WhyHistoriansDisagreeWhy-Historians-DisagreeWhy Historians Disagree1Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates,events and statistics. The students skills are then tested by examinations that require

2、them to show how much of the data they remember; the more they remember, the higher their grades. From this experience a number of conclusions seem obvious: the study of history is the study of facts about the past; the more factsyou know,the better you are as a student of history. The professional

3、historian is simply one who brings together a very large number of facts. Therefore students often become confused upon discovering that historians often disagree sharply even when they are dealing withe the same event.2Their commonsense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one hist

4、orian is right while the other is wrong. And presumably, historians who are wrong will have their facts wrong. This is seldom the case, however. Historians usually all argue reasonably and persuasively. And, the facts-the names,dates, events, statistics-ussally turn out to be correct. Moreover, they

5、 often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is , they use much the same data. They come to different conclusions because they view the past form a different perspective. History, which seemed to be a cut-and -dried matter of memorizing facts, now becomes a matter of

6、choosing one good interpretation form among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.大多数学生通常都是通过一本厚厚的教科书接触历史的，然后他们很快便淹没在浩瀚如海的名字、日期、事件和数据当中。然后学生们的学习水平通过考试来检验，主要考察他们记住了多少资料；记得越多，成绩就越好。我们可以从中得出一些显而易见的结论：历史学习就是学习过去的”事实“；你知道的历史”事实“越多，你的历史就学得越好。专业历史学家们就是将大量”事实“搜集到一起的人。因此，当学生们发现历史学家们甚

7、至对同一个历史事件常常有完全不同的意见时，他们常常感到困惑不解。面对这种情况，学生们的通常反应是，断定其中一位历史学家是正确的，而另一位是错误的。而且，据此推测，错误的历史学家们所掌握的”史实“是错的。然而，实际情况很少是这样的。历史学家们的论证通常都有理有据，并具有说服力。而且，那些”事实“-名字、日期、事件和数据-通常被证明是正确的。此外，学生们常常发现争论不休的历史学家或多或少认同这些”史实“；也就是说，他们使用的资料几乎相同。他们得出不同的结论是因为他们从不同的角度看待历史。原本历史似乎是一件记忆”史实“的事，现在却变成从许多解释中挑选出一种合理的解释的事了。历史真相变成了个人喜好问题

8、。3This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposedpoints of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them.4To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for

9、 granted. They must ask themselves what history really is .5In its broadest sense, history denotes the whole of the human past. More restricted is the notion that history is the recorded past, that is , that part of human life which has left some sort of record such as folk tales, artifacts, or writ

10、ten documents. Finally, history may be defined as that which historians write about the past. Of course the three meanings are related. Historians must base their accounts on the remains of the past, left by people. Obviously they cannot know everything for the simple reason that not every event, ev

11、ery happening, was fully and completely recorded. Therefore the historian can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded the quest.这种看法几乎难以令人满意。学生们不禁觉得，关于同一个历史事件的两种截然相反的观点不可能同时正确；然而，他们缺乏判断孰是孰非的能力。要理解历史学家们为什么意见不统一，学生们必须考虑一个他们或多或少已经认为理所当然的问题。他们必须问问自己，历史到底是什么。从最广义的角度看，历史是

12、指人类过去的全部。若加以限定，历史是有记录的过去，即人类生活中留下某种记录的那部分，如明间故事、手工制品或书面文件等。最后，历史也可以被定义为历史学家们对过去的描述。当然，这三种定义是相互关联的。历史学家们对历史的描述必须以过去人们的遗物为基础。显然，他们不可能清楚过去的一切，原因很简单，并非过去的每一大小事件都被全面完整地记录下来。因此，历史学家们至多只能是接近历史。没有哪位历史学家敢断言自己已终止了对历史的探索。6But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not everything

13、 was recorded, neither do they use all the records that are available to them. Rather, they select only those records they deem most significant. Moreover, they also re-create parts of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.7Historians ar

14、e able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior Sometimes this appears to be easy, requiring very little sopistication and subtlety. Thus, for example, historians investigating Americas evtry into World War I would probably find that the sinking of america

15、n merchant ships on the high seas by German submarines was relevant to their discussion. At the same time, they would most likely not use evidence that President Woodrow Wilson was dissatisfied withe a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917. The choice as to which fact to use is based on

16、a theory-admittedly, in this case a rather crude theory, but a theory nonetheless. It would go something like this: National leaders contemplating war are more likely to be influenced by belligerent acts against their countries than by their unhappiness with their haberdashers.但这种解释还是不够。如果说历史学家因为过去的一切并非都有记载而不能全面了解历史，他们也不会全部采用获得的所有历史记录。相反，他们只挑选那些他们认为最重要的记录来用。此外，他们还对部分历史进行重新创造。就像侦探一样，他们要拼凑已有证据来填补现有记录中的空白。根据某些有关人类动机和行为的理论，历史学家能