|
历史是由过去发生的事件和人,因此决定的主要因素是历史的趋势，这一直是人们很关心的东西。人们之间的关系和其他因素引起了激烈讨论，并且延续多年。然而,根据我的理解,虽然个人对历史确实有影响,但他们难以改变历史的趋势。这其中夹杂的其他因素也有更大的影响。在这里,其他因素被称为历史背景、社会情况等。与此同时,跟随着历史领导的学者认为,正确的研究方法应该是分析历史与个人的问题。
历史上杰出人物对特定事件的运动有很大的影响。正如著名的俄国革命和理论家Plekhanov在他1898年写的文章中解释说“但如果我的力量不能被视为等于零,如果我是一个熟练的和能干的员工,没有人取代我,然后我们将没有完整的年代,或者完全不如我们预期的那样,也可能不发生。”(个人在历史上的作用)这意味着,如果我们假设一件事情的发生是多种因素的总和,丢失或改变一个因素肯定会改变最终结果。
Lora Jennifer Tomscha May 12th, 2014 History is consisted of events and people happened in the past, thus what is the main factor that decides the trend of history is always what people care. The relationship between people and other factors has been fiercely discussed for many years. However, according to my understanding, although individual do have effect on history, they can’t change the general trend. And other factors have much more influence. Here, other factors are referred to historical background, social situation and so on. Meanwhile, as the lead of people’s thought of history, what is the proper way should historians write about history about the question of individuals’ relation with history? In history, the outstanding figures do have impact on the movement of specific events. Just as Plekhanov who is a famous Russian revolutionary and theoretician explains in his article written in 1898“But if my force cannot be regarded as being equal to zero, if I am a skilful and capable worker, and nobody has replaced me, then we will not have the full sum S, and phenomenon A will take place later than we assumed, or not as fully as we expected, or it may not take place at all.”(On the role of the individual in history) This means that if we assume that the happen of one thing is as the sum of many factors, missing or change of one factor will certainly make a difference to the final result. However, the society’s situation is also an important factor and is a much more important factor than individual. It is true that individual will have impact on events, but it only happens in specific social conditions. For example, Napoleon is often treated as an hero who broke the rules and changed the French society. But looking back to the time he was living in, his thought of liberty was largely influenced by Roussea’ theory of popular sovereignty and his great work” social contract”. And he won the reputation from the army and sovereign because he lived in a unstable society and had chances to show his outstanding ability of commanding the army. Thus, after the victory in several battles, he became the hero in Frenchmen’s heart. Later, French government became weaker and the European’s combined army to fight against France has become stronger. In this time, people need a strong and powerful government lead them to fight back. So, Napoleon’s revolution and declaring himself king got support from people. It is undeniable that Napoleon’s outstanding capacity and desire made a big difference in the movement of the whole event and French history, but without the situation and social background he was living in, he cannot be as famous as he is now. And if we imagine that Napoleon did not exist in the history of France, there was still a chance that a person in the whole France will have the same ability with him and be the hero just as Napoleon did. So we can hardly say that Napoleon changed the history, the truth is that the background he had changed him to be the one who influence the history. (On the role of the individual in history, G.V. Plekhanov)The history is inevitable moving to the more modern and more advanced society and it will alter some outstanding people to be the ones who lead the change to happen. So, just as Plekhanov says “The effect of personal peculiarities in the instances we have discussed is undeniable; but no less undeniable is the fact that it could occur only in the given social condition”. Either the exaggeration of the effect individual or other factors is the misunderstanding of history, but how do people’s thought of history come from? As what we see as history is what the historians write and record in their times. Our understanding of history is largely determined by the historians’ way of writing history. First of all, what is the definition of history? From Charles A. Beard, one of the most influential American historians of the first half of the 20th century, we learn that“[History] is thought about past actuality, instructed and delimited by history as record and knowledge authenticated by criticism and ordered with the help of the scientific method.”(Written History As An Act Of Faith, Charles A. Beard, 219) From his definition, we get the idea that the history we see in our life comes from the historians who work hard to collect, arrange and edit the history. As it is generally accepted that “each historian who writes history is a product of his age, and that his work reflects the spirit of the times, of a nation, race, group, class, or section”, (Written History As An Act Of Faith, Charles A. Beard, 220) what the historians write is usually not the exact truth cause the facts are often selected and ordered. It’s so common that what the historians write will be largely effected by their background. For example, in A Short Account Of The Destruction Of The Indies by BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS, who was a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar, the Indies are described as” innocent and pure in mind and have a lively intelligence” and “ they are neither ambitious nor greedy, and are totally uninterested in worldly power”. Meanwhile, when describing the action of the Spanish, the author uses the word “brute” or “tyrannical” for many times. However, it may be true that the Spanish are very cruel to the Indies, but according to the “Ten facts about the conquest of the Inca Empire” by Christopher Minster, “The soldiers and people of the Inca Empire did not meekly turn over their homeland to the hated invaders. Major Inca generals such as Quisquis and Rumiñahui fought pitched battles against the Spanish and their native allies.” Therefore, the process of colonization should just be a battle between two countries, but not massacring from one side. So why did he describe that period of history in that way? Well, he is a missionary of Christian who has the strong idea that it is not appropriate to conquer Indies in violent way but tame them in the spirit. He tried his best to protect so he may exaggerate what the Spanish did to the Indies and gave it to the emperor, trying to stop him from conquering America. The history he wrote was influenced by his thought and aim, which makes his work not the exact truth and will influence the readers’ perspective on that period. It’s understandable that the historians mix their feelings and ideas with the work they write, and generally, it will not do much to the readers because how the historians think and feel of their times is also valuable for us to study more thoroughly on history. But some tend of heroic or dramatic writing is not proper. As Henry Thomas Buckle (24 November 1821 – 29 May 1862), who was an English historian claims in History of Civilization in England that The misunderstanding of other historians is that they are confused of biography of empires, battles but neglect the law of history itself, historians often focus on the historical events happens in the history and in the describing of events, the historians in ancient times tend to focus more on the heroes. For example, when Sima Qian in his famous book Shih Chi describing the history of Chinese, he uses the form of biographical history, which gives the whole picture of history using the lives of several specific figures. Later after him, some historians also use his way to record history. This method of writing history obviously has put people in a much more important situation than other factors and tend to have a dramatic way of telling stories, but not to record and inherit it. They used this way to record history because Sima Qian thinks that the core factor of the development in history is people, so he observes and records history starting with people. (A reply to Ren An, Sima Qian) Meanwhile, biographical history makes it easier to record the whole event, which offer readers amenity to get the idea of the whole picture of single events. And his idea largely influenced the historians after, which makes that the famous twenty-four historical books in China are all in biographical style. This kind of style of writing history leads personal worship among people. The people tend to believe that a nice official can save them from the suffers they have so the story of the incorruptible officials is widely spread and welcomed by people, such as the story of Bao zhen, who was a famous just official. This kind of phenomenon reflects the heroic attitude of people, which makes them wait for others to make the revolutionary. However, in modern times, this kind of misunderstanding between individuals and history still happens among historians. Burr C. Brundage in his article “The Crisis of Modern Historiography” claims that “[History] almost seemed to come and perch on each individual man’s shoulder and look him scandalously in the face” (386) He feels that even in modern societies, historians still pay too much attention on individuals’ impact on history, but actually “historiography in its seven-league boots has no time to pause for [individuals]” (394)#p#分页标题#e# It’s a dangerous situation for historians to write like that as it will drive people’s thought of the society now. This kind of writing method may lead to two different ways: trying eagerly to make the change by oneself or waiting behind without any action. As the past history is recorded based too much on individuals, people will feel that the society they are living in should be the extension of the past. The first way they may feel is not realistic as the whole world is naturally moving forward, individuals’ blindly behavior may not have the effect others want. The terrorists are the extreme examples who want to change the world’s situation by themselves. However, the second attitude of waiting is too negative. Even though the individuals’ effort is limited, the world won’t improve without people’s effort, just as it is discussed in the first part of this essay. The proper way to treat the relationship between individuals and history is to focus more on other factors, but not ignore the influence of individuals. Therefore, based on the topic of the relationship between individuals and history, historians should pay attention on what they write, in case not to lead people to a wrong way with the thinking of history. Work cited文献参考 Beard, Charles A. "Written History as an Act of Faith." The American Historical Review 39.2(1934): 219-31. Print. G.V. Plekhanov, On the role of the individual in history. Nauchnoye Obrozhniye: Lawrence & Wishart, Nos.3 & 4, 1898. Print BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS, “A Short Account Of The Destruction Of The Indie” Nigel Griffin, London, England ; New York, N.Y. : Penguin Books ; 1992 Henry Thomas Buckle, “History of Civilization in England” Penguin; Southern Hemisphere New York, Hearst's international library co.; c1913.Print Christopher Minster , Ten facts about the conquest of the Inca Empire” http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/tp/Ten-Facts-About-The-Conquest-Of-The-Inca-Empire.htm Burr C. Brundage, The Crisis of Modern Historiography, Penn State University Press, The Christian Scholar, Vol. 37, No. 3 (September 1954), pp. 385-395 |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
