1.Why Historians Disagree(1831)

Passage One

The present text is based on the Introduction to a book entitled “Conflict and Consensus in Modern American History" edited by Allen F, Davis and Harold D. Woodman, professors at Temple University and Purdue University respectively, they also wrote the Introduction.

本文是根据美国天普大学和普渡大学教授艾伦·F·戴维斯和哈罗德·d·伍德曼分别编辑的《美国现代史中的冲突与共识》一书的导言编写的。

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.

【2】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 with the same event.

【3】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.

【4】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 from 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 from among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.

【5】This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposed 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 themselves what history really is.

【6】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.

【7】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.

【8】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 recreate parts of the past, like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.

【9】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.

【10】At the same time, they would most likely not use 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 use is based on a theory—admittedly, in this case a rather crude theory, but a theory nonetheless.

【11】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.

【12】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 series of other facts that could be relevant to the event under study.

【13】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.

【14】They will read of the interception of the "Zimmermann 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 from Mexico by the United States in the Mexican War.

【15】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.

【16】What then are historians to make of these facts? One group could simply list them. By doing 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. 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.

【17】The result will be a disagreement among the historians. Moreover, because the second group raises the question of Wilson's views, they will find a number of relevant facts that the first group would ignore. They will concern themselves with Wilson's education, the influence of his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote.

【18】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.

【19】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.

【20】In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems from 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.

【21】Suppose the teacher asked you, "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class," you explained, "because I overslept." Or to use a historical example, "The Civil War began because 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.

【22】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 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.

【23】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.

【24】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.

【25】By now, students should see that the well-used phrase "let the facts speak for themselves" has no real meaning. The facts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way, and therefore, they, and not the facts, are doing the speaking.

【26】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 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.

【27】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 could. But since we do not have such a complete and foolproof explanation, disagreements are destined to remain.

【28】When students realize that there is no one easy answer to the problems historians raise 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 useful part of their education.

第一课

为什么历史学家意见不一

艾伦·f·戴维斯和哈罗德·d·伍德曼

【1】大多数学生通常是通过一本厚厚的教科书开始学习历史的，他们很快就沉浸在名字、日期、事件和统计数据的浩瀚海洋中。然后通过考试来测试学生的技能，考试要求他们展示他们记住了多少数据;他们记住的越多，成绩就越高。

【2】从这一经验中，我们可以得出一些显而易见的结论:研究历史就是研究关于过去的“事实”;作为一名历史学生，你知道的“事实”越多，你就越优秀。职业历史学家只是一个汇集大量“事实”的人。因此，当学生们发现历史学家即使在处理同一事件时也经常出现尖锐的分歧时，他们往往会感到困惑。

【3】他们对这种事态的常识性反应是得出这样的结论:一个历史学家是对的，而另一个是错的。据推测，错误的历史学家所掌握的“事实”是错误的。然而，这种情况很少发生。历史学家的争论通常都是合理而有说服力的，而且“事实”，名字、日期、事件、统计数据，通常都是正确的。

【4】此外，他们经常发现，争论不休的历史学家对事实的看法或多或少是一致的;也就是说，他们使用相同的数据。他们得出不同的结论是因为他们从不同的角度看待过去。历史，似乎是老生常谈的记忆“事实”的问题，现在变成了从众多解释中选择一个好的解释的问题。历史真相变成了个人偏好的问题。

【5】这个位置很难令人满意。他们会不由自主地觉得，关于一个事件的两种截然相反的观点不可能都是正确的，但他们缺乏在两者之间做出决定的能力。

要理解历史学家为何意见不一，学生们必须考虑一个他们或多或少认为是理所当然的问题。他们必须问自己历史到底是什么。

【6】从最广义上讲，历史指的是人类过去的全部。更受限制的观念是，历史是被记录的过去，也就是说，人类生活的一部分留下了某种记录，如民间故事、人工制品或书面文件。最后，历史可以定义为历史学家所写的关于过去的东西。当然，这三种含义是相互关联的。

【7】历史学家必须把他们的叙述建立在人们留下的过去的遗迹上。显然，他们不可能知道所有的事情，原因很简单，不是每件事，每件发生的事，都被完整地记录下来。因此，历史学家最多只能近似历史;没有人能宣称自己已经完成了这项探索。

【8】但这还不够。如果历史学家不可能知道所有的事情，因为不是所有的事情都被记录下来，他们也不会使用所有可用的记录。相反，他们只选择那些他们认为最重要的记录。此外，他们也重现了过去的一部分，就像侦探一样，他们拼凑证据来填补现有记录中的空白。

【9】历史学家能够利用人类动机和行为的某些理论来选择和创造证据。有时这看起来很容易，不需要多少复杂和微妙的东西。因此，例如，研究美国加入第一次世界大战的历史学家可能会发现，美国商船在公海上被德国潜艇击沉与他们的讨论有关。

【10】同时，他们很可能不会使用伍德罗·威尔逊总统对他在1917年头几个月买的一顶新帽子不满意的证据。选择使用哪个事实是基于一种理论，不可否认，在这种情况下，这是一种相当粗糙的理论，但毕竟是一种理论。

【11】大致是这样的:考虑战争的国家领导人更有可能受到针对自己国家的好战行为的影响，而不是对自己的服饰老板的不满。

【12】如果选择这么简单，问题就很容易解决了。但做出选择并不那么容易。研究美国参加第一次世界大战的历史学家会发现，除了德国潜艇战之外，还有一系列其他事实可能与正在研究的事件有关。

【13】例如，他们会发现英国政府在美国有一个宣传机器在运作，它尽其所能赢得公众对英国事业的支持。他们会发现，美国银行家给英国人提供了大笔贷款，这些贷款在英国战败的情况下是无法偿还的。

【14】他们将读到截获的“齐默尔曼照会”，在照会中，德国外交部长命令驻墨西哥的德国部长，如果发生战争，建议德国和墨西哥结盟，这样墨西哥在德国的支持下，就可以赢回美国在墨西哥战争中从墨西哥手中夺走的领土。

【15】他们还会发现，许多美国政治领导人对欧洲的力量平衡深感担忧，如果德国人能够击败法国人和英国人，从而成为欧洲唯一的大国，那么这种平衡就会被破坏，这对美国不利。

【16】那么历史学家如何看待这些事实呢?一个小组可以简单地列出它们。通过这样做，他们将做出两个重要的假设:(1)他们列出的事实是主要原因，而他们没有列出的事实是不重要的;(2)他们列在清单上的那些事情在解释美国的角色时同样重要。但另一组历史学家可能会认为，这份名单是不完整的，因为它没有考虑到伍德罗·威尔逊普遍亲英的观点，而这些观点源于这位总统的背景和教育。

【17】结果将是历史学家之间的分歧。此外，由于第二组人对威尔逊的观点提出质疑，他们会发现许多第一组人会忽略的相关事实。他们会关注威尔逊的教育、他的老师对他的影响、他读过的书和他写过的书。

【18】总之，尽管两组历史学家研究的是同一个问题，但他们会得出不同的结论，并用不同的事实来支持他们的观点。选择哪些事实，忽略哪些事实，不是取决于所研究的问题，而是取决于历史学家的观点。

【19】同样，第三类历史学家可能会坚持认为，不应该对清单上的各种项目给予同等的重视，所列的其中一个原因，比如银行家的贷款，是最重要的。这里的理论是，经济问题是人类动机的关键，而少数富有的银行家拥有影响政府的不成比例的能力。

【20】在上述例子中，历史学家们的分歧在于他们从不同的前提出发。但还有另一个领域的分歧，其根源相当不同。历史学家有时会产生分歧，因为他们讨论的不是同一件事。他们通常只是考虑不同层次的因果关系。

【21】假设老师问你:“你今天早上为什么上课迟到了?”“我上课迟到了，”你解释说，“因为我睡过头了。”或者用一个历史上的例子，“1861年4月12日，南卡罗来纳海岸炮台向萨姆特堡的联邦驻军开火，内战由此开始。”这两种说法都不能因为不准确而遭到指责;然而，与此同时，两者都不足以解释正在考虑的事件。

【22】下一个问题很明显:你为什么睡过头，或者为什么一个州和联邦政府之间的关系达到了必须通过战争来解决分歧的地步?换句话说，我们必须超越近因，深入探究。但随着我们对这个问题的深入研究，答案变得更加困难和复杂。

【23】最后，你可能会争辩说，你迟到的根本原因是你出生的事实，但显然，这太久远了，没有意义。你的出生当然是一个必要因素，但不是充分因素;这不足以解释你今天的行为。

【24】同样，你可以把南北战争的原因追溯到美洲的发现，但这也是一个必要的而不是充分的原因。原因既是必要又是充分的这一点并不是不言自明的。因此，历史学家可能会再次对从哪里开始分析产生分歧。

【25】到目前为止，学生们应该看到，“让事实说话”这句经常使用的短语并没有真正的意义。事实本身不会说话;历史学家以一种特殊的方式使用事实，因此，是他们而不是事实在说话。

【26】历史学家不仅经常与他人意见相左。他们经常意见不一。事实上，他们经常修改自己的想法。他们必须这样做，因为他们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。历史学家也相互学习，并从类似事件和机构的国际比较中受益。

【27】我们能消除所有分歧吗?如果我们的知识水平足以为我们提供一个毫无疑问的有效模型，从而完全解释人类的行为，我们就能做到。但是，由于我们没有这样一个完整和万无一失的解释，分歧注定会继续存在。

【28】当学生们认识到历史学家提出的问题没有一个简单的答案，而“真相”只是一个难以捉摸却又吸引人的永无止境的追求目标时，他们就会发现研究历史是他们教育中一个重要的、令人兴奋的和有用的部分。