发布时间 : 星期一 文章新标准大学英语4 课文原文及翻译更新完毕开始阅读a9902ae4b94cf7ec4afe04a1b0717fd5360cb295
要理解为什么历史学家不同意，学生们必须考虑一个他们或多或少认为理所当然的问题。他们必须问问自己历史到底是什么。
In its broadest sense, history denotes the whole of 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 conclude the quest.
从最广泛的意义上说，历史代表了人类历史的全部。更受限制的概念是，历史是有记录的过去，也就是说，人类生活的一部分留下了某种记录，如民间故事、手工艺品或书面文件。最后，历史可以被定义为历史学家对过去的记录。当然这三个意思是相关的。历史学家必须以人们遗留下来的历史遗迹为基础。很明显，他们不可能知道所有的事情，原因很简单，不是每一件事情，每一件发生的事情，都被完整地记录下来。因此，历史学家最多只能大致了解历史。没有人能声称完成了探索。
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 pates of the of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.
但这还不够。如果历史学家不能知道所有的事情，因为并不是所有的事情都被记录了下来，那么他们也不会使用所有可以得到的记录。相反，他们只选择那些他们认为最重要的记录。此外，他们还重现了过去的画面。像侦探一样，他们拼凑证据来填补现有记录的空白。
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 America’s merchant ships on the high seas by German submarines was relevant to their discussion. An 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.
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。有时这似乎很容易，只需要很少的复杂和微妙。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。与此同时，他们很可能不会使用伍德罗·威尔逊总统对1917年初购买的新帽子不满的证据。
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’ into World War I will find in addition to German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that 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 defeat. 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 the 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.
如果选择就这么简单，问题就会很容易解决。但是做出选择并不容易。历史学家调查美国卷入第二次世界大战就会发现除了德国潜艇战一系列其他事实发现,英国政府宣传机器在工作在美国尽其所能的为英国赢得公众支持的原因。他们会发现，美国银行家为英国战败提供了巨额贷款。他们会读的拦截齐默尔曼指出,德国外交部长命令德国的部长在墨西哥,在发生战争,表明德国和墨西哥,墨西哥之间的结盟,在德国的支持下,可以赢回领土被美国在从墨西哥墨西哥战争。他们也会发现在许多美国政治领导人深的担忧在欧洲的权力平衡,平衡会被摧
毁——对美国不利,如果德国人打败了法国和英国,从而成为唯一在欧洲大国。
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 of equal important; and (2) those things they put on their list are of equal importance in explaining America’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. The result will be a disagreement among the historians. 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，历史学家如何看待这些事实呢?一组可以简单地列出它们。这样做，他们会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同样重要;他们列在清单上的那些事情对于解释美国的角色同样重要。但另一群历史学家可能会说，这份名单是不完整的，因为它没有考虑伍德罗·威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)总体上亲英的观点，这些观点源于总统的背景和教育背景。结果将是历史学家之间的分歧。简而言之，尽管这两组历史学家研究的是同一主题，但他们会得出不同的结论，并使用不同的事实来支持他们的观点。所选择的事实和那些被忽略的事实，并不取决于所研究的问题，而是取决于历史学家的观点。
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. Suppose the teacher said “The Civil War began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.” The statement cannot be faulted on the grounds that it is inaccurate of the event being considered. The next question is obvious. Why did relation 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 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 “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.
在给出的例子中，历史学家不同意，因为他们从不同的前提出发。但是，仍然存在另一个分歧领域，它源于一些相当不同的东西。历史学家有时不同意，因为他们并不是在讨论同一件事。他们通常只是考虑不同层次的因果关系。假设老师说:“1861年4月12日，南卡罗莱纳海岸炮兵连向萨姆特堡的联邦驻军开火，内战由此开始。”“这项声明不能有任何错误，因为它对正在审议的事件是不准确的。下一个问题很明显。为什么一个州和联邦政府之间的关系会发展到必须通过战争来解决分歧的地步?换句话说，我们必须超越直接的原因，进行越来越深入的探索。但当我们更深入地研究这个问题时，答案变得更加困难和复杂。最后，你可以把内战的起因追溯到发现美洲，但是，这是一个必要的，但不是充分的原因。原因既是必要的又是充分的，这一点是不证自明的。因此，历史学家可能会再次对从何处开始分析产生分歧。到目前为止，学生们应该明白，“让事实说话”这个常用短语没有真正的意义。事实本身并不能说明一切;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。
Historians not only often disagree with others. They often disagree with themselves. Indeed they are often revising their ideas. Historians also learn from each other and benefit from international comparisons of similar events and institutions.
历史学家不仅常常不同意别人的观点。他们经常不同意自己的观点。事实上，他们经常修改自己的想法。历史学家也相互学习，并从类似事件和制度的国际比较中受益。
Can we eliminate all disagreement? If the state if our knowledge were such that it provided us with a model of unquestioned validity that completely explained human behavior, we could. But since