Introduction: History and Historians

By Allen Davis and Harold Woodman

  1. Consider how the authors make use of the word fact. Why do they present the word with quotes around it (“facts”)? What does this imply?
  1. Why are “facts” insufficient means for understanding history?
  1. How can “experience and common sense” be wrong in the assessment of history? If not experience/common sense, what other traits can be employed?
  1. What factors account for the different interpretations of past events?
  1. The authors state: “historians do not just present facts; they present some facts and not others. They choose those facts that seem significant and reject others. This is one of the reasons that historians disagree : they have different views or different theories concerning human behavior and therefore find different kinds of information significant.” What does this statement indicate about concepts about truth and/or notions of accuracy in the understanding history?
  1. In what fundamental ways do conflict (revisionist) and consensus (traditional) oriented historians differ?
  1. The authors say “historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference, like the choice of one brand-name item over another in a supermarket.” What does this mean?
  2. Can historical truth be broken down to have such selective value? Does this diminish history and truth?
  3. In your understanding, what is historical truth?
  1. After exploring American entry into World War I, the author’s state “the facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.” If historians can promote or disregard “facts” [whatever that means], can we consider true?
  2. What is the difference between perspective/point-of-view and bias?
  1. Why can’t historians even “begin their investigations without adopting some theory (5)”?
  1. On page 7, the authors assert

“Clearly, then, historical facts as such have no intrinsic meaning; they take onmeaning and significance only when they are organized and presented by historianswith a particular point of view. The well-used phrase ‘let the facts speak forthemselves’therefore has no real meaning. The facts do not speak for themselves;historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not thefacts, are doing the speaking. In other words, historians give meaning to facts byassessing their significance and by presenting them in a particular manner. Inshort, they interpret. Because different historians use different facts or use thesame facts in different ways, their interpretations differ.”

Analyze this statement in the context of your project and answer this question…what is your role as historian in your project. How can you serve your topic being unbiased, but also reach a conclusion about the topic?

  1. History is often called a social science, but the authors make clear that the field of history is not scientific, but social science theories may be applied to history. Why do the authors caution that use of social science theories and practices must be used carefully by historians? Do you agree? Why/why not?
  1. The authors claim, “stripped to its essentials…the task of historians is to deal with change (10).” If historians primarily deal with change, the observer principle (physics) can be applied [Is the change observed an actual change or does the change occur due to the role of the historian?]. Consider the role of the historian in determining the patterns of change and how that contributes to the narrative of history (the stories we know). How do you think a historian could deal with this concern?
  1. The authors observe various “traditions” and “themes” [pages 11-15] of historical development as presented by historians. Consider the various “traditions.” Which tradition do you think most closely aligns with the expectations of the College Board for your APUSH course? Why/how?
  1. In considering the themes and traditions, which theory do you find most persuasive, compelling, or interesting in your own examination of history? Why?
  2. How could this inherent interest impact your historiographic research that you’re currently undertaking?