Why Historians Disagree
Allen F. Davis & Harold D.Woodman
1     Most 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 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 "facts"you know,the better you are as a student of history. The professional 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.
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。
2 submarine    Their commonsense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian 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--usually turn out to be correct. Moreover, they 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 choosing one good interpretation form among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.
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。
3     This 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.
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。
4     To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted. They must ask themselves what history really is .
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。
5     In 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 written 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, every 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.
从最广义的角度看，历史是指人类过去的全部。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。
6    But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not everything 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.
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。
7     Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior Sometimes this appears to be easy, requiring very little sophistication and subtlety. Thus, for example, historians investigating America's entry int
o World War I would probably find that the sinking of American 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 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.
根据某些有关人类动机和行为的理论，历史学家能够挑选和创造证据。有时，这看起来很容易，不需要复杂的经验和敏锐的观察力。比如说，那些研究美国参加第一次世界大战原因的历史学家很有可能会认为，德国潜水艇击沉在公海航行的美国商船这件事与他们的讨论有关。与此同时，他们绝不会使用伍德罗.威尔逊总统对他在1917年头几个月买的一顶新帽子不满意这样的证据。选择使用哪些事实是基于一种理论---不可否认，在这种情况下，这是一个相当粗糙的理论，但不管怎么说，它是一种理论。这个理论大致是这样的：对于考虑战争问题的国家领导人来说，他们更可能受到针对他们国家的寻衅行为的影响，而不
是受到对服饰经销商的不满的影响。
8     If the choices were as simple as this ,the problem would be easily resolved. but the choices were not so easy to make. Historians investigating the United States' entry into World Was I will find in addition to German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that could be relevant to the event under study. For instance, they will find that the British government had a propaganda machine at work in the United States that did its best to win public support for the British cause. They will discover that American bankers had made large loans to the British, loans that would not be repaid in the event of a British defeat. They will read of the interception of the "Zimmerman Note," in which the German Foreign Secretary ordered the German minister in Mexico, in the event of war, to suggest an alliance between Germany and Mexico whereby Mexico, with German support, could win back territory taken form Mexico by the United States in the Mexican War. They will also find among many American political leaders a deep concern over the balance of power in Europe, a balance that would be destroyed --to America's disadvantage--if the Germans were able to defeat the French and the British and thereby
emerge as the sole major power in Europe.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。