Part I:

I. Discussion

1. How was history taught in your high school? What were you usually required to do? How were you evaluated?

2. What is the problem of this approach?

1) Do historians usually agree in their descriptions and explanations of the same historical events?  

2) Does this mean that some of them are right while some of them are wrong? Does this mean that they have their facts wrong? Why or why not?

3. How would you react when you found historians dealing with the same event often disagree?

4. Question: What is the misunderstanding the authors are trying to clarify in Para.1?

  History is just the facts of names, dates and statistics of the past. The study of history is the study of these “facts” about the past.

5. Question: What is the confusion of the students put forward in Paras.2-3?

1) Historians who are wrong may have their “facts” correct.

2) Contending historians more or less agree on the same facts, but come to different conclusions.

3) It seems that historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.

4) It’s hard to decide which of the two opposed points of view about an event is correct.

II. Language Study

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. (Para. 1)

For most students, they begin their study of history with a thick textbook in which there are a great number of names, dates and statistics for them to remember.

by way of: through; by route of，e.g．

Taiwanese planes can now fly from the mainland to Taiwan by way of Hong Kong or Macao．

“By way of ”can also mean“ as a means of”，e．g．

He sent her some flowers by way of an apology．

Fat: thick, wide

a vast sea of:  (metaphor) a great number of

to be immersed in：to be completely covered or submerged in a liquid；to be deeply involved or absorbed,e.g.

I’m immersed in this project.

2. Their common-sense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian is right while the other is wrong. (Para. 2)

Their common-sense reaction: their response based on common sense

this state of affairs:  a situation

while: “whereas or and”, implying a contrast

When a person is faced with this kind of situation, the normal, practical response will be that one historian is right whereas the other is wrong.

3. This position is hardly satisfying. (Para. 3)

Position: situation or state; status

This is not a happy solution or happy situation. Students expect to be given clear-cut answers, either yes or no. But now they have to shop around for the proper answer. The answer becomes a personal choice. This makes them feel very uncomfortable.

Part II

A. Advantages

I. Discussion

1. Is it a record of the human past?

2. Is it in some way similar to literature?

3. Is it a collection of interesting and instructive stories?

4. Is it a tool of propaganda?

5. Is it only about facts?

6. What does the job of historians involve?

7. Is it a science? Is it purely objective science?

8. A further question:

If history is easily used as a tool for propaganda, if history is based partly on guesswork, does this mean that the study of history and historical works are not reliable? How can historians achieve any credibility?

9.  What are the three definitions of history?

in the broadest sense	the whole of the human past
in a restricted sense	the recorded part of human life
in a common sense	what historians write about the past

Of the three possible definitions of history the authors have listed in the text, which do you think is the most accurate? Why?

10. What is the role of the historians?

Historians do not just collect facts. They give meaning to the facts.

11. Why do historians disagree?

Because historians have different interests and a different understanding of human motivation and human behavior which in turn is due to their different background in age, sex, race, class, education, religion, politics, etc., they tend not only to be interested in different facts but also interpret the same facts differently.

12. What is the main idea of Paras. 7—8? How are the two paragraphs developed?

Paras. 7—8 is about the factors for American entry into WWI.

The two paragraphs are developed by way of exemplification.

13. What is the main idea of Paras. 9—10? What are the interpretations of the three schools?

Paras. 9—10 is about how the three schools  interpret these factors.

First group: These are the only important ones and they are equally important;

Second group: The list is incomplete—leaving out Wilson’s pro-British attitude;

Third group: These are not of equal importance—bankers’ influence is the most important.

14. What can be concluded in Paras. 9—10?

Conclusion:

Subject—the same: American entry into WWI

facts—different

reason—different points of view

15. Historians come to different conclusions because they view the past from a different perspective.

What does “perspective” mean?

How will differences in perspective lead to disagreements?

16. Why do the authors talk about Wilson’s new hat and the sinking of American merchant ships?

17. Why do the authors mention a whole series of facts that could be relevant to American entry into WWI?

18. Why do the authors mention a whole series of facts that could be relevant to American entry into WWI?

a) German unrestricted submarine warfare

b) British propaganda

c) American loans

d) The Zimmermann Note (The Mexican War)

e) A deep concern over the balance of power in Europe

II. Language Study

1. Different ways of giving a definition ( para. 5)

---In its broadest sense, A denotes B.

---More restricted is the notion that A is…

---A may be defined as …

2. Therefore the historian can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded

the quest. (Para. 5)

Approximate:  to come close to

at best: search; pursuit

quest: search; probing

Therefore the best the historian can do is to get as near as possible to the historical truth. But no one can ever boast that he/she has completed this search. It goes on for ever.

3. But this does not say enough. (para. 6)  

a) But this is still an inadequate answer to the question why history is not simply a record of the past. Why?

b) Do historians just give us all the facts about the recorded past?

4. Sometimes this appears to be easy, requiring very little sophistication and subtlety. (Para. 7)

requiring very little: present participle phrases functioning as cause

sophistication: complexities

subtlety: fine distinctions

Sometimes this appears to be easy, demanding no special training or profound knowledge or the ability to understand very complex issues and fine distinctions.

5. 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. (Para. 7)

as to:  with regard to; concerning

admittedly: we all admit

crude: unrefined

nonetheless: (fml)nevertheless; however

The choice concerning which fact to use is based on a theory. I am willing to concede that the theory used here is unrefined, yet it is still a theory.

6. It would go something like this: National leaders contemplating war are more likely to be influenced

by belligerent acts against countries than by their unhappiness with their haberdashers. (Para. 7)

contemplating war:  pondering over the problem of war; considering going to war with anther country

belligerent acts: war acts, acts of war

unhappiness with their haberdashers: unhappiness with their hat makers or hat shops; unhappiness about personal trivial things

7. Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be

given equal weight. (Para. 10)

Similarly: for the same reason

Maintain: to continue to have the view

given equal weight: to consider sth. important

Similarly a third group of historians might argue that the various points put on the list should not considered equally important.

Part III

I. Discussion

1. What is the main idea of para. 11? What are the two reasons listed in Para. 11 to explain why historians disagree?

1). They begin from different premises.

2). They are merely considering different levels of causes and effect.

2. How do the authors view the controversy among historians?

The controversy not only lies between historians, but also happens to the same historian with the discovery of new information and progress of the society. It is impossible to remove the controversy and it is the very existence of the controversy that lends excitement to the study of history.

3. Is it true that in analyzing causes of historical events the further back one traces, the better?  

4. Explain:

Historians sometimes disagree because they are not really discussing the same matter.

The point at which causes are both necessary and sufficient is not self-evident.

To illustrate the point, the authors use an analogy.

Why are you late?                        The cause of the Civil War

– Overslept                                Open fire at Fort Sumter?  

– I stayed up cramming for the exam.                Slavery

– I missed too many classes.                   the Compromise of 1850                             

 – I didn’t like the class.               the militant abolitionist movement of the 1830s

                                  the Missouri Compromise

                         the conflict over slavery in the constitutional convention

                                       Introduction of blacks to America in 1619

5. What does it mean when the authors say that historians often disagree with themselves?

6. Can we eliminate all disagreements? Why not?

7. Why is it important to know why historians disagree?

8. Why do the authors say being able to see truth as “an elusive yet intriguing goal in a never-ending quest” will make students appreciate the study of history?

II. Language Study

1. Neither statement can be faulted on the grounds that it is inaccurate. (Para. 11)

be faulted: to be criticized; to be considered wrong

grounds: reasons or justifications

that it is inaccurate: noun clause serving as an appositive of “grounds”

You cannot find fault with either statement and say it is not accurate. (Neither statement can be criticized on the grounds that it is inaccurate.)

2. 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. (para. 13)

  If our knowledge of human beings and the world is thorough and advanced enough to give us a model that can explain human behavior completely and can work under any circumstances, disagreements in history can be eliminated. Unfortunately such a model has never existed.

3. But since we do not have such a complete and foolproof explanation, disagreements are destined to remain. (Para. 13)

Foolproof: always effective; completely dependable; infallible

are destined to: to be bound to do sth.; to be predetermined or preordained to do sth.

 But since we do not have such a complete and infallible explanation, disagreement are bound to exist.

4. When students realize that… “truth” is but an elusive yet intriguing goal in a never-ending quest... (Para. 13)

but: only

an elusive yet intriguing goal: a goal that is extremely attractive yet forever out of reach

never-ending quest: an everlasting or interminable search

 When students realize that… “truth” is only a goal that is beyond reach yet extremely attractive and should be sought in a permanent search.