-
Why Historians Disagree
Allen F
. Davis & Harold
n
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
as
a
student
of
history.
The
professional
historian
is
simply
one
who
brings
together
a
very
large
number of
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
“
p>
;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
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
the
case,
however.
Historians
usually
all
argue
reasonably
and
persuasively.
And,
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
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
“
< br>;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
< br>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 into 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
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.
如果选择都如此简单,那
问题就很容易解决了。但做出选择不是那么容易。那些研究美国参加第一次世
界大战的历
史学家们会发现,除了德国潜水艇战之外,还有其他一系列的史实可能与他们正在研究的事
件有关。例如,他们会发现英国政府的一个宣传机构在美国进行了大量宣传,极力争取美国公众对英国
的支持。他们会发现美国的银行家们给英国发放了大量贷款,一旦英国战败,这些巨额贷款将无法
得到
偿还。他们会读到截获的
”
齐默尔
曼外交照会
“
,里面德国外交部长命令德国驻墨西哥公使节,一
旦德美
战争爆发,就建议墨西哥政府与德国结成同盟,由此在德国的帮助下,墨西哥可以
夺回它在墨西哥战争
中被美国夺去的领土。他们还会发现许多美国政治领导人非常关注欧
洲的实力平衡,如果德国打败法国
和英国从而成为欧洲唯一的主要强国,这种平衡就会被
打破,那将对美国非常不利。
9
What then are historians to make of
these facts? One group could simply list them .By
dong so, they
would
be
making
two
important
assumptions:
(1)
those
facts
they
put
on
their
list
are
the
main
reasons, while those they do not list
are not important; and (2) those things they put
on their list are of
equal importance
in explaining the U.S. another group of
historians might argue that the list is
incomplete in that it does not take
into account the generally pro-British views of
Woodrow Wilson,
views
that
disagreement
among
the
historians.
Moreover,
because
the
second
group
raise
the
question of Wilson's views, they will
find a number of relevant facts that the first
group his teachers,
the books he read,
and the books he wrote. In short, although both
groups of historians are dealing
with
the same subject they will come to different
conclusions and use different facts to support
their
points of view. The facts
selected, and those ignored, will depend not on
the problem studied but on
the points
of view of the historians.
那么,历史学家们将如何来
看待和解释这些事实呢?一组历史学家可能仅仅把它们列出来。这样做,意
味着他们作出
了两个重要的假设:
(
1
)那些他们列
出来的事实是主要原因,而那些他们没有列出来的则
无足轻重;
(
2
)在解释美国在战争中所扮演的角色时,那些他们列出来的
事实同等重要。但另一组历史
学家可能争辩说,
所列内容不够完
整,
因为这些事实没有把伍德罗
.
威尔
逊总统的亲英观点考虑进去,
这
个观点源于总统本人的背景和教
育经历。结果,历史学家们的意见出现了分歧。而且,由于第二组历史
学家提出了威尔逊
的亲英观点这一问题,他们会找出许多倍第一组历史学家所忽略的相关史实。他们会
关注
威尔逊的教育经历、他的老师对他的影响、他读过的书以及他所著的书。总而言之,虽然两组历史
学家在讨论同一个问题,但他们会得出不同的结论并使用不同的史实来支持自己的观点。事实的挑选和<
/p>
忽略并不由所研究的问题决定,而是取决于他们的观点。
10
Similarly a
third
group of historians
might maintain that the
various items
on the
list should
not be
given equal weight, that one of the
reasons listed, say, bankers' loans,was most
important. The theory
here would be
that economic matters are the key to human
motivation, and that a small number of
wealthy bankers have a disproportionate
ability to influence government.
同样,第三组
历史学家可能坚持认为,所列出的各项事实的重要性不应是等同的,而其中的一个原因,
如银行家的贷款,是最为重要的。他们的理论根据是:经济因素是人类动机的关键,并且为数不多的富
有的银行家对政府有着特别大的影响力。
11
In the examples given,
historians disagree because they begin from
different premises. But there is
still
another
realm
of
disagreement
which
stems
form
something
rather
different.
Historians
sometimes disagree because they are not
really
discussing the same thing. Often
they are merely
considering different
levels of cause and effect. Suppose the teacher
asked you
for
class
this
morning?
was
late
for
class
you
explained,
I
overslept.
Or
to
use
a
historical
example,
federal garrison at Fort
Sumter on April 12,1861.
that it its
inaccurate; at the same time, however, neither is
sufficient as an explanation of the event
being considered. The next question is
did you oversleep, or why did relations between
one state and the Federal government
reach the point where differences had to be
settled by war? In
other words, we have
to go beyond the proximate cause and probe further
and further. but as we dig
more deeply
into the problem, the answer becomes more
difficult and complex. In the end, you might
argue that the ultimate cause of your
being late was the fact that you were born, but
obviously this
goes too far back to be
meaningful. That you were born is of course a
necessary factor, but it is not a
sufficient factor; it does not really
tell enough to explain your behavior today.
Similarly you could trace
the cause of
the Civil War back to the discovery of America,
but again, that is a necessary but not a
sufficient
cause.
The
point
at
which
causes
are
both
necessary
and
sufficient
is
not
self-evident.
Therefore historians may again disagree
about where to begin the analysis. By now students
should
see that the well-used phrase
not speak for themselves; historians
use the facts in a particular way and therefore
they, and not the
facts, are doing the
speaking.
以上所举的例子中,历史学家们之所以意见不一是因为他们开始的
前提不同。但是历史学家们之间还有
另一种分歧,而这种分歧源于一个相当不同的原因。
历史学家们有时意见不一是因为他们实际上并不是
在讨论同一个问题。他们通常考虑的只
是事物因果关系的不同层次。假如老师问你
”
今天早晨上课为什
么迟到了?
“
你会解释说:
”
我迟到是因为我睡过了头。
“
< br>或者举一个历史上的例子,
”
美国南北战争的起
因是南卡罗来纳州的海岸炮兵在
1861
年
p>
4
月
12
日向驻守
在萨姆特堡的守备部队开火。
“
这两种说法都
< br>不能因为不准确而被说成是错误的;
但同时,
两者都不足
以用来解释相关问题。
接下来的问题显而易见:
你为什么睡过头
,
或者为什么一个州和联邦政府的关系恶化到要通过战争才能解决分歧的地步?换句话<
/p>
说,
我们得超越近因,
更深入地探究下去
。
但随着我们对问题的剖析更加深入,
问题的答案也变得更难、
更复杂。最后,你可能会说,你迟到的最终原因是因为你来到了人世,但显然这偏离我们
的话题太远,
已经没有实际意义了。你的出生当然是个必要条件,但它不是充分条件。问
题在于,在所有的原因中,
必要条件和充分条件的交叉点并不是显而易见的。因此,历史
学家们就会在从何处着手分析问题上再次
产生分歧。现在学生们应当明白,人们常说的<
/p>
”
让事实说话
“
实际上没有任何意义。事实自己不会说话;
历史学家们用一种特殊的方式使用事实,因此
,是他们在说话,而不是事实。
12
Historians not only often disagree
with others. They often disagree with themselves.
Indeed they are
often
revising
their
ideas.
They
have
to
do
so
because
they
are
constantly
discovering
new
information, gaining new
insights form other social scientists and
mastering and using new techniques.
Historians also learn form each other
and benefit form international comparisons of
similar events and
institutions.
历史学家们不仅经常和其他人意见不一,他们也会经常和自己的意见产生分歧。事实上,他们经常修改
自己的观点。他们这样做是因为他们在不断地发现新的信息,从其他社会学家那里获得新
的见解,不断
掌握并使用新的技术。历史学家们还会互相学习,并且通过对比研究国际上
的相似事件和制度获益。
13
Can we eliminate all disagreement? If the state of
our knowledge were such that it provided us with a
model of unquestioned validity that
completely explained human behavior, we can. But
since we don
’
t
have
such
a
complete
and
foolproof
explanation,
disagreements
are
destined
to
remain.
when
students realize that there is no one
easy answer to the problems historians raise and
that
but an elusive yet intriguing goal
in a never ending quest, they will find the study
of history to be a
significant,
exhilarating, and useful part of their education.
我们能消除所有的分歧吗?如果我们的知识水平已能为我们提供一个能完全地解释人类行
为的绝对有
效模式,我们就能消除分歧。但由于我们无法做出这样一个完整可靠的、万无
一失的解释,分歧便注定
要存在。当学生们意识到,历史学家们提出的问题没有一个简单
的答案,并且
”
真相
“
只是在永无止境的
探索中的一个难以实现却又引人入胜的目标时,他们会发现学
习历史是他们所受教育中一个意义深远
的、令人兴奋的且有益的组成部分。
(
1,624
words
)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇:南宁历史发展简要(中英对照)
下一篇:春季学期小学二年级下册地方教案