I. Warming up

1. Discussion

What kind of writing is this? How does the language strike you?

1) Academic writing?

2) Formal words or informal words?

3) Impersonal structures?

4) Long or short sentences?

5) Clear presentation?

2. Check-on preview

What kind of writing is this? How does the language strike you?

1) Academic writing?

2) Formal words or informal words?/p>

3) Impersonal structures?

4) Long or short sentences?

5) Clear presentation?

II. Background

Views on History

“The End of History?” (Francis Fukuyama)

A. New Historicists: history and literature

B. French Annal School and total history

C. Big tradition and small tradition

D. Grand narrative and rejection of such a narrative

In all, the TEXTUALITY of history.

A. New Historicism

It’s a reaction to deconstructionist view of history which amounts to historical nihilism. Yet it’s radically different from traditional historicism.

1) History is not a series of events that have a linear, causal relationship.

2) The self-claimed objective analysis is impossible.

3) Traditional historians ask, “What happened?” and “What does the event tell us about history?” New historicists ask, “How has the event been interpreted?” and “What do the interpretations tell us about the interpreters?”

B. The French Annal School

A radical shift of perspective in the study of history from the SIGNIFICANT events—political, economic, personal—to the DAILY and ROUTINE happenings in the life of the common people. A shift of focus from the court and battlefield to the folk and tea table of the common.

C. Big tradition and small tradition

• An idea particularly important in the study of cultural anthropology.

• By comparing the state-sponsored reports on and records of the exploits of Chinese Three Gorges Project and the movie Still Life by Jia Zhangke, we can see the incompatibility of big and small traditions.

D. His-story and her-story

Women have either been excluded from the history or been denigrated in the historical account. When they were included, they were marginalized or subordinated by the male (not necessarily male) historians, or used as scapegoats to explain the misfortunes in the history.

III. Text analysis

Structure

1. Part I The introduction (paras. 1-5 )

a) Misconceptions about the study of history (paras. 1-3)

b) Definition of history (paras. 4-5)

2. Part II The body (paras. 6-11)

a) Selection of different facts about the same event (para. 6)

b) Use of the same facts from different premises (paras. 7-10)

c) Analysis of different levels of cause and effect (para. 11)

3. Part III The conclusion: inevitability of disagreement (paras. 12-13)

4. Detailed Analysis

Part I (A): Discussion

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

2. What are the basic assumptions and implications of this approach?

3. What is the problem of this approach?

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

b) 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?

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

Part I (B): What is history?

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?

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?

Part II (A): Discussion

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

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

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

Part II (B): Discussion

1. What is this part about?

2. Historians come to different conclusions because they view the past from a different perspective. (para. 2)

a) What does “perspective” mean?

b) How will differences in perspective lead to disagreements?

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

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

5. 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

Full text of The Zimmermann Telegram:

On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: that we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement. (to be continued)

You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan.

Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months. ----Zimmermann (Sent January 19, 1917)

Part II (A+B): Argumentation

1. Historians select and create evidence by using of some theories of human motivation and behavior. (paras. 6-7)

2. Guided by different theories, historians select different facts and interpret facts differently, coming to different conclusions. (paras. 8-10)

Part II (C): Discussion

1. What is the main idea of para. 11?

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

3. Explain:

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

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

Part III: Discussion

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

2. Can we eliminate all disagreements? Why not?

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

4. 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?

IV. Reinforcement:

1. The title of the text is “Why Historians Disagree.” Do you think that the analyses only apply to historians? Why do people disagree in general?

2. Why do historians disagree? What controversies have excited Chinese or foreign historians concerning either ancient or recent history? Describe one and explain the causes of the controversy.

3. How do the authors achieve smooth transition between paragraphs?