我們怎么了解美國歷史?（一）

John Sullivan
Do you like to read? There are hundreds of books on the history of the United States.
Suggest: A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. America's Hidden History by Kenneth C. Davis.
There are many others. A quick web search will provide massive sources. The obxt will be to read factual and truthful events, which can be challenging, as we have learned over time that history we were taught was accurate for years, has been subject to upxes and corrections.

你喜歡讀書嗎?有無數(shù)本關(guān)于美國歷史的書。
建議讀:霍華德·津恩的《美國人民歷史》?？夏崴埂ご骶S斯的《美國隱藏的歷史》。
還有很多其他的書籍。快速網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索可以提供大量的資源。我們的目標是閱讀事實和真實的事件，這可能是具有挑戰(zhàn)性的，因為隨著時間的推移，我們已經(jīng)了解到，多年來我們被教授的曾認為是準確的歷史，一直受到更新和更正。

John Salman
There are many ways to learn about the history of the United States. Some options include:
Reading books or articles about US history
Visiting museums or historical landmarks
Taking a class or online course on US history
Watching documentaries or films about US history
Participating in educational tours or reenactments
Consulting primary sources such as letters, diaries, and government documents
It may also be helpful to focus on specific time periods or themes that interest you, as the history of the United States is vast and comple

了解美國歷史有很多方法，包括這些選項:
閱讀有關(guān)美國歷史的書籍或文章
參觀博物館或歷史地標
參加美國歷史課程或在線課程
觀看有關(guān)美國歷史的紀錄片或電影
參加教育旅游或倡導歷史重演的活動
查閱第一手資料，如信件、日記和政府文件
專注于你感興趣的特定時期或主題也可能會有所幫助，因為美國的歷史博大精深

Rik Elswit
The purpose of American History as taught in our schools is to generate and promote patriotism, and it’s bowdlerized to make us look noble. Look at all the blowback about teaching children that racism in the US is systemic, and embedded in our laws and culture.
Present it as the story of how we got here, warts and all, and you’d have a far more receptive audience, and one where they didn’t suspect that they were being lied to. It’s actually a ripping and gripping yarn which they ruin by trying to make heroes of the colonists and slaveowners. We’ve actually done great things as a nation, but the twisting of the tale ruins it.
Teach that this country, both good and evil, is always in process, and that what it is, up to us.

我們學校教授的美國歷史的目的是培養(yǎng)和促進愛國主義，它被美化了，使我們看起來很高尚?？纯丛诿绹苑N族主義的方式系統(tǒng)性的教育孩子，并且將其根植于我們的法律和文化中所帶來的反彈吧。
把它作為我們是如何發(fā)展到今天的故事，不掩蓋地呈現(xiàn)出來，你都會有一個更容易接受的觀眾，他們不會懷疑自己被欺騙了。這實際上是一個扣人心弦的故事，他們試圖把殖民者和奴隸主塑造成英雄，結(jié)果毀了它們。事實上，作為一個國家，我們歷經(jīng)了很多偉大的事情，但扭曲的故事破壞了這一切。
告訴他們，這個國家，不管是好是壞，總是在發(fā)展中，它是什么樣，這取決于我們自己。

Ah L?m
Technically speaking, the US only has 47 states.
Virginia, Kentucky, and Massachusetts are technically “commonwealths”, and not states.
Honolulu, Hawaii, is the most isolated city on the planet. It is over 2,000 miles to the nearest city, San Francisco
Reno, Nevada is farther west than Los Angeles, CA
Maine is the closest state to the African continent
The United States has no official language at the federal level, but states can set up their own official languages. For example, California’s official language is English.
Four of the first five presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe) were from Virginia. As such, the early era of the United States was known as the Virginia Dynasty.
New York City has around 9 million people… meaning there are more people living in NYC than in about 40 of the other states.

嚴格意義來講，美國只有47個州。
嚴格意義來講，弗吉尼亞州、肯塔基州和馬薩諸塞州是“聯(lián)邦”，而不是州。
夏威夷的火奴魯魯是地球上最與世隔絕的城市，它距離最近的城市舊金山有2000多英里。
內(nèi)華達州的里諾比加利福尼亞州的洛杉磯更為靠西。
緬因州是離非洲大陸最近的州
美國在聯(lián)邦一級沒有官方語言，但各州可以設(shè)立自己的官方語言。例如，加州的官方語言是英語。
前五任總統(tǒng)中有四位（喬治·華盛頓、托馬斯·杰斐遜、詹姆斯·麥迪遜和詹姆斯·門羅）來自弗吉尼亞州。因此，美國早期被稱為弗吉尼亞王朝。
紐約市約有900萬人口，這意味著紐約市的人口比其他40個州的人口加起來還要多。

Tim O'Neill
How do we know the history is the real history?
The idea that "history is written by the winners" is a clichéd truism that isn't actually very true. History is actually written by academics trained in a careful scholarly method and working within a system of peer review, both of which serve to discard unlikely or obviously biased interpretations. It works toward an argument to the best explanation - ie one that explains as much of the evidence as possible and which is agreed is the most likely version of what happened in the past.
The Historical Method is based on three fundamental steps, each of which has its own techniques:

我們?nèi)绾沃罋v史才是真正的歷史？
“歷史是由勝利者書寫的”是一句陳詞濫調(diào)，但事實并非如此。事實上，歷史實際上是由受過嚴謹學術(shù)方法訓練的學者撰寫的，他們在同行評議的制度下工作，這兩種制度都有助于摒棄不太可能或明顯有偏見的解釋。它傾向于一個最佳解釋的論證，即盡可能多地解釋證據(jù)，并被認為是過去發(fā)生的事情的最可能的版本。
了解歷史的方法基于三個基本步驟，每個步驟都有自己的技巧:

1. Heuristic- This is the identification of relevant material to use as sources of information. These can range from the obvious, such as a historian of the time's account of events he witnessed personally, to the much less obvious, like a medi manor's account book detailing purchases for the estate. Everything from archaeological finds to coins to heraldry can be relevant here. The key word here is "relevant", and there is a high degree of skill in working out which sources of information are pertinent to the subject in question.

啟發(fā)式 這是對相關(guān)材料的識別，用作信息來源。這些可以是顯而易見的，比如歷史學家對他親眼目睹的事件的描述，也可以是不太明顯的，比如中世紀莊園的賬簿，詳細說明了莊園的購買情況。從考古發(fā)現(xiàn)到錢幣再到紋章學，一切都與此相關(guān)。這里的關(guān)鍵詞是“相關(guān)”，要找出哪些信息來源與所討論的主題相關(guān)，需要高度的技巧。

2. Criticism- This is the process of appraisal of the source material in the light of the question being answered or subject being examined. It involves such things as determining the level of "authenticity" of a source (Is it what is seems to be?), its "integrity" (Can its account be trusted? What are its biases?), its context (What genre is it? Is it responding or reacting to another source? Is it using literary tropes that need to be treated with scepticism?) Material evidence, such as archaeology, architecture, art , coins etc needs to be firmly put into context to be understood. Documentary sources also need careful contextualisation - the social conditions of their production, their polemical intent (if any), their reason for production (more important for a political speech than a birth certificate, for example) , their intended audience and the background and biases of their writer (if known) all have to be taken into account.

批評——這是根據(jù)被回答的問題或被檢查的主題對原始材料進行評估的過程。它涉及諸如確定來源的“真實性”水平之類的事情（它是看起來的那樣嗎？）、它的“完整性”（它的說法可信嗎？它的偏見是什么？）、其背景（它是什么類型的？它是在回應(yīng)還是在回應(yīng)另一個來源?它是否使用了需要持懷疑態(tài)度對待的文學修辭?）物質(zhì)證據(jù)，如考古、建筑、藝術(shù)、硬幣等，需要牢牢地放在歷史背景中才能被理解。文獻來源也需要進行仔細的背景分析——他們制作的社會條件、他們的爭論意圖（如果有的話）、他們的制作理由(例如，對政治演講來說比出生證明更重要)，他們的目標受眾以及作者的背景和偏見(如果知道的話)都必須考慮在內(nèi)。

3. Synthesis and Exposition - This is the formal statement of the findings from steps 1 and 2, which each finding supported by reference to the relevant evidence.
The key difference between this method and those used in the hard sciences is that the researcher lays all this material, its analysis and his conclusions out systematically, but the conclusions are a subjective assessment of likelihood rather than an obxtive statement of probabilistic induction. This subjectivity is what many trained in the sciences find alien about history and lead them to reject history as insubstantial.

綜合與闡述 這是對步驟1和步驟2中發(fā)現(xiàn)（每個發(fā)現(xiàn)都得到了相關(guān)證據(jù)的支持）的正式陳述。
這種方法與硬科學中使用的方法的關(guān)鍵區(qū)別在于，研究人員系統(tǒng)地列出所有這些材料、分析和結(jié)論，但這些結(jié)論是對可能性的主觀評估，而不是對概率歸納的客觀陳述。這種主觀性正是許多受過科學訓練的人對歷史感到陌生的地方，并導致他們拒絕接受歷史，認為歷史是虛無的。

But the key thing to understand here is that the historian is not working toward an absolute statement about what definitely happened in the past, since that is generally impossible except on incidental points nof fact (eg there is no doubt that Adolf HItler was born on April 20 1889). A historian instead works to present "the argument to the best explanation". In other words, the argument that best accounts for the largest amount of relevant evidence.
This means that there is never a definitive version of history - the best historians can come to is a general consensus It also means that any consensus is always being re-examined and potentially revised by the next generation of young historians. And that new types of information get added to the heuristic (eg blogs, social media records) and So our understanding of the past can never become a fixed orthodoxy.

但這里要理解的關(guān)鍵是，歷史學家并不是在對過去肯定發(fā)生的事情做出絕對的陳述，因為這在一般情況下是不可能的，除非是偶然事件(例如，阿道夫·希特勒生于1889年4月20日，這是毫無疑問的)。相反，歷史學家致力于提出“最好的解釋”。換言之，最能說明問題的、相關(guān)證據(jù)數(shù)量最多的論點。
這意味著，歷史永遠不會有一個明確的版本；最好的歷史學家所能達成的是普遍共識。這也意味著，任何共識都會被下一代年輕歷史學家重新審視和修訂。新類型的信息被添加到啟發(fā)式中（例如博客、社交媒體記錄），因此，我們對過去的理解永遠不會成為一種固定的正統(tǒng)觀念。

The popular perception of the past is substantially determined by the way these carefully analysed perspective on history filter down into popular culture. Historians and students of their work can and do write popularisations or help produce documentaries which can help to achieve this. But other elements can make popular perception resistant to this influence. The prejudice of many people against religion has meant that the Nineteenth Century idea that religion has always been an enemy of science is still a very strong element in popular culture, despite the fact actual historians of science rejected this "Conflict Thesis" almost a century ago.

大眾對過去的看法在很大程度上是由這些仔細分析的歷史視角滲透到大眾文化中的方式?jīng)Q定的。歷史學家和學習他們作品的學生也確實可以寫通俗讀物或幫助制作紀錄片，這有助于實現(xiàn)這一目標。但其他因素可能會使公眾的看法抵制這種影響。許多人對宗教的偏見意味著，19世紀認為宗教一直是科學的敵人的觀點仍然是流行文化中一個非常重要的因素，盡管事實上，科學史學家在近一個世紀前就拒絕了這種“沖突論”

And very popular novels or movies can reinforce ideas about the past which have no academic support. Thanks to Braveheart, generations of people are convinced medi Scots wore kilts and blue war paint (they wore neither). Thanks to Washington Irving's novel A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) people are still convinced the medi Church taught that the earth was flat. Academic history has a major influence on how we see the past, but it's not the sole determinant.
But only people who are very naive and have no understanding of history as an academic discipline think history is simply a matter of taking sources from the time at face value. Historians do precisely the opposite of this - they analyse source material with extreme scepticism and use multiple sources and types of material in their heuristic to get the broadest and most obxtive view of the past possible.

非常受歡迎的小說或電影可以強化那些沒有得到學術(shù)支持的關(guān)于過去的認知。多虧了《勇敢的心》，幾代人都堅信中世紀的蘇格蘭人穿著蘇格蘭方格呢短裙和藍色戰(zhàn)漆（實際上他們都不是這種穿著打扮）。多虧了華盛頓·歐文的小說《克里斯托弗·哥倫布生平與航海史》（1828），人們?nèi)匀幌嘈胖惺兰o教會教導的“地球是平的”的認知。學術(shù)史對我們看待過去的方式有很大影響，但它并不是唯一的決定因素。
但是，只有那些非常天真、不把歷史當作一門學科來理解的人，才會認為歷史只是從表面上看那個時代的資料。歷史學家的做法恰恰相反——他們以極端懷疑的態(tài)度分析原始材料，并在他們的啟發(fā)中使用多種來源和類型的材料，以盡可能獲得最廣泛、最客觀的有關(guān)于過去的認知。

Kip Wheeler
Several methods help:
Crosschecking sources, especially when you have possibly neutral sources that don’t have a dog in the fight with potentially biased sources.
Archaeological confirmation. Yes, a battle did happen here. How do we know? All these arrowheads, etc.
Weighing historical narratives against common archetypal or mythic ones. If a known mythical version of an event can be dated to an earlier time than a later text that retells the same narrative as a historical one, the odds increase this is an upxed version of a legend rather than a factual one, or at least any historical event like this may have been exaggerated or spliced into that older legend.
Realizing that the phrase “history is written by the winners” is never absolute. Our archives are filled with historical records written by losers as well.

有助于了解歷史的幾種方法：
交叉檢查來源，尤其是當你有可能有中立的消息來源，而這些消息來源不會與潛在的有偏見的消息來源相沖突。
考古確認：是的，這里確實發(fā)生過一場戰(zhàn)斗。我們怎么知道的?所有這些箭頭，等等。
權(quán)衡歷史敘述與共同的原型或神話故事：如果一個已知的神話版本可以追溯到比后來的文本更早的時間，而這些文本復述了與歷史事件相同的敘述，那么這是一個傳說的更新版本而不是一個事實，或者至少任何像這樣的歷史事件都可能被夸大或拼接到那個更古老的傳說中。
意識到“歷史是由勝利者書寫的”這句話從來都不是絕對的。我們的檔案里也充滿了失敗者寫的歷史記錄。

Familiarity with particular chroniclers. If you know that Gerald of Wales’ Topography of Ireland is filled with errors and naive acceptance of local legends, you assess his historical claims more skeptically than another chronicler of the same time period who is taking more effort to get at the truth. The same is true if a Galician chronicler has a burning hatred of the Basque—you learn who has which biases the more you read.
Familiarity with modern propaganda. If you know a modern historian has ties to a particular country or cause, you look at his claims more skeptically than another historian who doesn’t.
Familiarity with academic publishing. If your only sense of history comes from random web pages thrown at you by Google, and you think “historical research” is primarily webbrowsing, you are at a disadvantage compared to readers who know how major specialist journals do peer review to help eliminate bias and propaganda and error.
Accepting boredom. In the search for truth, 99% of the details will be boring minutia for outsiders, but real historians know that’s where the truth lies. If you are reading material that “sexes up” history and dramatizes primarily the weird, the exciting, and the controversial in 2-minute sound bites, the odds increase that you are looking at distorted history rather than actual history.

熟悉特定的編年史：如果你知道威爾士的杰拉爾德的《愛爾蘭志》充滿了錯誤和天真地接受當?shù)貍髡f的現(xiàn)象，與同一時期的另一位更努力地尋找真相的編年史專家相比，你對他的歷史主張持更懷疑的態(tài)度。如果一個加利西亞編年史專家對巴斯克有著強烈的仇恨之心，情況也是如此——你讀得越多，就會知道誰有哪種偏見。
熟悉現(xiàn)代宣傳：如果你知道一位現(xiàn)代歷史學家與某個特定的國家或事業(yè)有聯(lián)系，相比另一位沒有相關(guān)聯(lián)系的歷史學家，你會更懷疑他的說法。
熟悉學術(shù)出版：如果你對歷史的唯一感覺來自谷歌隨機性推給你看的網(wǎng)頁信息，并且你認為“歷史研究”主要是瀏覽網(wǎng)頁，那么與那些知道主要專業(yè)期刊如何進行同行評審以幫助消除偏見、宣傳和錯誤的讀者相比，你的知識是有缺陷的。
接受無聊：在尋找真相的過程中，99%的細節(jié)對局外人來說都是無聊的細節(jié)，但真正的歷史學家知道這就是真相所在。如果你讀的材料把歷史“性別化”，把奇怪的、激動人心的和有爭議的事情戲劇化，在兩分鐘的錄音片段中，你看到的是被扭曲的歷史而不是真實的歷史的可能性就會增加。

Anderson Dourado
George W. Bush was US President in September 2001. He had visited a school in Florida to talk to 8-year-olds. Bush had prepared a speech on truancy.
Before the president entered the room, the White House security officer claimed that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. However, it was still thought to be a small plane, it could just be an accident.
The president went to read a book with the children. Shortly after, the second plane hit the other tower.
The entourage returned to the airport and boarded the presidential plane. The decision was not to return to Washington DC at that time — the White House could be a target. The plane first went to a base in the state of Louisiana. From there, he went to another base in Nebraska, where there was a video call meeting.
Finally, the entourage returned to Washington DC. On the flight, it was possible to see smoke coming out of the Pentagon building, the headquarters of the US Armed Forces. That night, he delivered a White House speech in which he made it clear that the country would respond.

2001年9月，喬治·布什擔任美國總統(tǒng)。他參觀了佛羅里達州的一所學校，與8歲的孩子交談。布什準備了一篇關(guān)于逃學的演講。
在總統(tǒng)進入房間之前，白宮安全官員聲稱一架飛機撞上了世貿(mào)中心的一座大樓。然而，人們?nèi)匀槐徽J為那是一架小型飛機，它可能只是一場意外事故。
總統(tǒng)和孩子們一起讀書去了。不久之后，第二架飛機撞上了另一座大樓。
隨行人員返回機場，登上總統(tǒng)專機。當時的決定是不返回華盛頓特區(qū)，因為白宮可能成為襲擊目標。這架飛機首先飛往路易斯安那州的一個基地。從那里，他去了內(nèi)布拉斯加州的另一個基地，在那里舉行一個視頻電話會議。
最后，隨行人員返回華盛頓特區(qū)。在飛行中，可以看到五角大樓的美國武裝部隊總部冒出濃煙。當晚，他在白宮發(fā)表講話，明確表示美國將做出回應(yīng)。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處