现代⼤学英语精读第⼆版（第三册）学习笔记（原⽂及全⽂翻译）——11A-WhyHistori。。。
Why Historians Disagree
Allen F. Davis and Harold D. Woodman
Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immerd in a vast a 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 em 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 confud upon discovering that historians often disagree sharply even when they are dealing with the same event.
Their commonn 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 ldom the ca, 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 contendi
ng historians more or less agree on the facts; that is, they u much the same data. They come to different conclusions becau they view the past from a different perspective.
History, which emed to be a cut-and-dried matter of memorizing "facts," now becomes a matter of choosing one good interpretation from among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.
This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically oppod points of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them.
To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted. They must ask themlves what history really is.
In its broadest n, 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 cour the three meanings are related. Historians must ba 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 hist
orian can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded the quest.
But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything becau not everything was recorded, neither do they u all the records that are available to them.
Rather, they lect only tho records they deem most significant. Moreover, they also recreate parts of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.
Historians are able to lect 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 as by German submarines was relevant to their discussion. At the same time, they would most likely not u evidence that President Woodrow Wilson was dissatisfied with a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917. The choice as to which fact to u is bad on a theory—admittedly, in this ca 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.
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 War I will find in addition to German submarine warfare a whole ries 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 cau.
foolish是什么意思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 "Zimmermann Note," in which the German foreign cretary 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 from 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.
What then are historians to make of the facts? One group could simply list them. By doing so, they would be making two important assumptions: (1) tho facts they put on their list are the main reasons, while tho they do not list are not important; and (2) tho things they put on their list are
of equal importance in explaining the US role. But 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 stemmed from the President's background and education. The result will be a disagreement among the historians. Moreover, becau the cond group rais the question of Wilson's views, they will find a number of relevant facts that the first group would ignore.
They will concern themlves with Wilson's education, the influence of 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 u different facts to support their points of view. The facts lected, and tho ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.
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.
In the examples given, historians disagree becau they begin from different premis. But there is s
till another realm of disagreement which stems from something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree becau they are not really discussing the same thing. Often they are merely considering different levels of cau and effect. Suppo the teacher asked you "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class" you explained, "becau I overslept." Or to u a historical example, "The Civil War began becau South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861."
Neither statement can be faulted on the grounds that it is inaccurate; at the same time, however, neither is sufficient as an explanation of the event being considered. The next question is obvious: Why did you oversleep, or why did relations between one state and the Federal government reach the point where differences had to be ttled by War? In other words, we have to go beyond the proximate cau 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 cau 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 cour 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 cau of the Civil War back to the discovery of America, but again, that is a necessary but not a sufficient cau. The p
oint at which caus are both necessary and sufficient is not lf-evident. Therefore historians may again disagree about where to begin the analysis. By now students should e that the well-ud phra "let the facts speak for themlves" has no real meaning.希腊语翻译
The facts do not speak for themlves; historians u the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not the facts, are doing the speaking.
学韩语的网站Historians not only often disagree with others. They often disagree with themlves. Indeed they are often revising their ideas. They have to do so becau they are constantly discovering new information, gaining new insights from other social scientists and mastering and using new techniques. Historians also learn from each other and benefit from international comparisons of similar events and institutions.
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 do not 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 rai and that "truth" is but an elusive yet intriguing goal in a never-ending quest, they will find the study of history to be a significant, exhilarating, and uful part of their education.
历史学家为何意见有分歧
艾伦·F.戴维斯哈罗德·D.伍德曼
⼤多数学⽣开始学习历史时，通常抱着⼀本厚厚的教科书，⽽且很快便置⾝于浩如烟海的名字、⽇期、事件和数据当中。学⽣们的知识⽔平是通过考试来检验的，这种考试是要考查他们记住了多少历史数据资料；记得越多，成绩越好。从这样的经历中，我们可以得出这样⼏条明显的结论：学习历史就是学习过去的“事实”；作为历史专业的学⽣，你知道的“史实”越多，你的⽔平就越⾼。专业历史⼯作者只不过是搜集⼤量历史“事实”的⼈。因此，当学⽣们发现就同⼀个历史事件，历史学家们的意见明显不同时，他们常常感到困惑。
对于这样⼀种情况，他们的反应通常是，认为其中⼀位历史学家是正确的，⽽另⼀位是错误的。⽽且，⼤概错误的历史学家所列举的“事实”也是错的。然⽽，实际情况很少是这样的。历史学家在争论时都有理有据，具有说服⼒。⽽且，那些事实——名字、⽇期、事件和数据通常被证实都是正确的。此外，学⽣们常常发现争论双⽅的历史学家们对所持有的“事实”基本上观点⼀致；换句话说，他们使⽤的⼏乎是⼀样的数据资料。他们得出的结论不同是因为他们是从不同的⾓度来审视过去。
历史在过去似乎被认为只是普通地记忆“事实”，⽽现在却成为要从许多解释中挑选出⼀个理想解释的过程。历史真相变成了⼀桩由个⼈喜好所决定的事情。
这种看法⼏乎⽆法令⼈满意。学⽣们禁不住会觉得，就同⼀个历史事件的两种截然不同的观点不可能都正确；然⽽，他们缺乏从中作出取舍的能⼒。
要理解历史学家们为什么意见迥异，学⽣们必须考虑⼀个他们或多或少视为理所当然的问题。他们必须问⾃⼰历史究竟是什么。
从⼴义来说，历史是指⼈类过去的全部。⽐较狭义的概念是，历史是被记录下来的过去，即留下了某种记录的⼈类⽣活的⼀部分，如民间故事、⼿⼯制品或有⽂字记载的⽂献等。最后，历史也可以被定义为历史学家们所撰写的有关过去的资料。当然，三种意思是相互关联的。历史学家们必须将他们对历史的叙述建⽴在前⼈的遗留物上。很显然，他们不可能对过去⼀切都了解得⾮常清楚，原因很简单，即并⾮过去的每⼀件⼤⼩事情都有详细全⾯的记录。因此，历史学家们⾄多只能接近历史。还没有哪个⼈敢说⾃⼰已完成了这项探索。
但这种说法还不全⾯。如果说历史学家是因为记载不全⾯⽽不能对历史做全⾯了解的话，他们也没能有效地利⽤他们所能得到的所有记录。
相反，他们只挑选那些他们认为最重要的历史资料⽤于研究。此外，他们也对部分历史进⾏重新创造。像侦探⼀样，他们要拼凑证据来填补现有记载中的⼀些空⽩。
历史学家可以使⽤⼈类动机和⾏为的某些理论来挑选和创造证据。有时，这看起来很容易，因为这不需要丰富的经验和敏锐的观察⼒。例如，那些调查美国介⼊第⼀次世界⼤战原因的历史学家们可能会发现，美国商船在公海被德国潜⽔艇击沉这件事与他们的讨论有关。与此同时，他们绝不会使⽤与之⽆关的证据，如伍德罗·威尔逊总统对他在1917年头⼏个⽉买的那顶新帽⼦不满意。⾄于选择哪些事实来使⽤要基于⼀种理论——不可否认，在这种情况下是⼀种相当粗糙的理由。但不管怎么说，它仍是⼀种理论。这理论⼤致是这样的：正在考虑是否参战的国家领导⼈更可能受到敌对国家挑衅⾏为的影响，⽽不会因为对服饰经销商感到不满⽽卷⼊战争。
如果所做的选择是如此简单，那问题就很容易解决了。但选择并⾮如此简单。那些调查美国介⼊第⼀次世界⼤战原因的历史学家们发现，除了德国潜艇战⼀事之外，还有⼀系列的其他事实可能与他们正在研究的事件有关。例如，他们发现英国政府的⼀个宣传机构正在美国运作着，它在极⼒争取美国公众对英国战争的⽀持。
他们会发现美国银⾏家们向英国发放了⼤量贷款，⼀旦英国战败，这些贷款将⽯沉⼤海。他们会读到“齐默尔曼密电”截获事件。在密电中，德国外交部长命令德国驻墨西哥的外交使节，⼀旦战争爆发，他须建议墨西哥和德国结盟，这样⼀来，墨西哥在德国的帮助下便可以收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势⼒平衡，这种平衡⼀旦被打破——如果德国打败法国和英国，从⽽成为欧洲唯⼀的主导⼒量——那将对美国⾮常不利。
那么，历史学家们将如何利⽤这些事实呢？⼀组史学家可能仅仅把它们列出来。这样做的话，他们会作出两种重要的假设：（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不重要；（2）那些他们列出来的事实在解释美国在⼀战中所扮演的⾓⾊时同等重要。但另⼀组历史学家可能争辩说所列内容不完整，因为那其中没有把伍德罗·威尔逊亲英的观点考虑进去，那些观点涉及总统本⼈的背景和教育经历。其结果将使历史学家们意见出现分歧。此外，由于第⼆组历史学家提出了威尔逊的观点这⼀问题，他们会找出第⼀组忽略的⼀些相关事实。
他们会关注威尔逊的教育经历、他的⽼师对他的影响、他所读的书以及他所著的书。简⾔之，虽然两组历史学家在讨论同⼀个话题，但他们会得出不同的结论并使⽤不同的事实来⽀撑⾃⼰的观点。事实的挑选和忽略并不依据所研究的问题，⽽是取决于历史学家的观点。
同样，第三组历史学家可能坚持认为不应该把所列出的各项事实视为同等重要，例如，在所列出的原因中，银⾏家贷款⼀项最为重要。这⾥所使⽤的理论是：经济问题是⼈类动机的关键，为数不多的富有的银⾏家们有着相当⼤的能⼒来影响政府。
在以上的例⼦中，历史学家们之所以意见分歧是因为他们的出发点不同。但他们之间的分歧还来⾃于另⼀迥然不同的领域。历史学家们的意见有时出现分歧是因为他们实际上并不是在讨论相同的问题。他们常常仅仅考虑到事物因果的不同层⾯。假如⽼师问你：“今天早晨上课为什么迟到了？”你解释说
我上课迟到是因为我睡过头了。”还可以再举⼀个历史上的例⼦。“南北战争的爆发是因为在1861年4⽉12⽇，南卡罗来纳州的海岸炮兵向驻守在萨姆特要塞的联邦部队开了⽕。”
虽然这两种说法都不够准确，但是也⽆可指责。然⽽，两种说法都不能充分地解释正在讨论的事件。下⼀个问题显⽽易见：你为什么睡过头？还有：为什么⼀个州和联邦政府的关系紧张到如此地步，以⾄于只能通过战争才能解决？换句话说，我们必须超越事物的近因，进⼀步讨论其起因。但随着我们对问题的剖析更加深⼊，问题也变得更加困难和复杂了。最后，你可能同意这样的说法：你迟到的最终原因是因为你来到了⼈世间，但是，这显然偏离我们讨论的话题太远，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；它不⾜以说明你今天的⾏为。同样，你可以将美国南北战争的起因追溯到发现美洲⼤陆，但是同样，那也是必要⽽⾮充分条件。造成某件事情的充要条件并不是不⾔⾃明的。因此，历史学家会就从何处着⼿分析问题再次产⽣分歧。现在学⽣们应当发现“让事实说话”这⼀⽼⽣常谈实际上没有任何意义。
事实不会⾃⼰说话；历史学家们在⽤⼀⼰特定的⽅式来利⽤事实，因此是他们⽽不是事实在说话。中日在线翻译
历史学家不仅经常和其他⼈意见有分歧，他们也时常不能与⾃⼰保持⼀致。的确，他们经常在修改⾃⼰的观点。他们之所以这样做是因为他们在不断地发现新的信息，从其他社会科学家那⾥获得新的见解，掌握和使⽤新的技术。历史学家们也彼此互相学习，并且通过⽐较研究国际上类似的事件和机构⽽受益。
我们能消除所有的分歧吗？如果我们的知识⽔平已达到了这样的程度——它能为我们提供⼀个别⽆疑义、能全⾯解释⼈类⾏为的模式，我们就能做到这点。但由于我们⽆法作出这样⼀个完整⽽且可靠的解释，分歧便注定存在。当学⽣识到，对于历史学家们提出的问题不会有⼀个简单的答案，并且“真相”只是⼀种在永⽆⽌境的探索中的⼀个难以达到却⼜充满诱惑的⽬标时，他们会发现学习研究历史是⾃⼰所受教育中的⼀个重要、令⼈振奋并且使⼈受益匪浅的组成部分。
Key Words:
disagree [.disə'gri:]
v. 不⼀致，有分歧，不适应，不适宜
perspective [pə'spektiv]
n. 远景，看法，透视
adj. 透视的
conclude [kən'klu:d]
vi. 总结，作出决定
vt. 使结束，推断出underneath
confud [kən'fju:zd]
adj. 困惑的；混乱的；糊涂的
professional [prə'feʃənl]
adj. 职业的，专业的，专门的
n. 专业⼈
dealing ['di:liŋ]pandaren
n. 经营⽅法，⾏为态度
obvious ['ɔbviəs]
adj. 明显的，显然的
vast [vɑ:st]
adj. 巨⼤的，⼴阔的
n. 浩瀚的太
授权委托书英文reaction [ri'ækʃən]
n. 反应，反作⽤⼒，化学反应
interpretation [in.tə:pri'teiʃən]
n. 解释，阐释，翻译，(艺术的)演绎
understand [.ʌndə'stænd]
vt. 理解，懂，听说，获悉，将 ... 理解为，认为< oppod [ə'pəuzd]英语四级估分器
adj. 反对的，敌对的 v. 和 ... 起冲突，反抗
disagree [.disə'gri:]
v. 不⼀致，有分歧，不适应，不适宜
ba [beis]
n. 基底，基础，底部，基线，基数，(棒球)垒，[化]碱preference ['prefərəns]
n. 偏爱，优先，喜爱物
related [ri'leitid]
adj. 相关的，有亲属关系的
bandicootavailable [ə'veiləbl]
adj. 可⽤的，可得到的，有⽤的，有效的
claim [kleim]
n. 要求，要求权；主张，断⾔，声称；要求物
restricted [ris'triktid]
vt. 限制，约束 adj. 受限制的，有限的，保密的relevant ['relivənt]
adj. 相关的，切题的，中肯的
sophistication [sə.fistikeiʃən]
n. ⽼练，精明，复杂，精密，有教养，诡辩，强词夺理merchant ['mə:tʃənt]
n. 商⼈，店主，专家harsh
adj. 商业的
nonetheless [.nʌnðə'les]
adv. 尽管如此(仍然)
evidence ['evidəns]
n. 根据，证据
