批改符号说明：

绿底为优美，黄底为瑕疵，红底为错字（括号里边为间批），中间横线为删除，^{上标符号添加字}，文下隔行写点评，点评内容用红字，红双线“‖”处段另起（分段）.

 

What is history?

发布时间：2016-10-11 00:17:36 作者：于小珊  发布者：759383689 浏览次数：3960  类别：英文作文  

Hello everybody. Today I would like to talk about American history after world war I. As we all know, the president of the United States during that time was Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who established Committee on Public Information and leaded America through WWI. So he was a competent president, who helped the U.S. make great progress with sufficient knowledge and great ambition. Do you agree with it? Do you agree with the opinion that he was a great one? But why. Why do you agree with it? Have you seen Wilson on your own? Or have you ever been in America during that period? I mean you just make your judgement by the messages I gave you just now or by thoughts from other individuals, and you say:” it’s just the history in my eye.” However, sometimes reasonable suspicion will come out: Are the stories we learned true? Is the history we acquired right? The answer is certainly no. Of course, history does not mean facts that we chase for. But we can’t talk directly with the past to know the truths. We can only learn about it from people who are called historians. “The facts of history do not exist for any historian till he creates them.” The facts speak only when historians call on them like fish on the fishmonger’s slap. Historians collect them, take them home, cook and serve them in whatever style they expect. Though historians make efforts to figure out the facts, reaching the true answer is still not so easy even they know that being accurate is a duty, not a virtue. First, the facts of history never come to us purely, since they cannot exist in a pure form: They are always refracted through the recorder’s mind. It means that when we take up a paper of history or something related to history, our first concern should be not only the facts which it contains, but also the historian or the recorder who wrote it. The second point is historian’s need to have an imaginative understanding of the people with whom he is dealing and of the thought behind their acts. I say “imaginative understanding” rather than “empathy,” because empathy is supposed to imply agreement. The third point is that we can review the past and obtain our understanding of the past only through our own eyes. Maybe some historians are old and they are restricted by the conditions they used to live in. So facts they worked out could be more subjective, showing us in the form of interpretations and evaluations. Interpretations enters into every facts of history. They are a series of accepted judgments but not fact at all. You may say that the main work of the historian is to record rather than to evaluate, but if he does not evaluate, how can he know what is worth recording? Therefore subjective is inevitable. So Corce says that all history is “contemporary history”, it means that history consists essentially of seeing the past through the eyes of the present and the light of its problem . Different historian has different views on history and historical facts. It makes no sense to ask that whose opinion is perfectly right because facts are scared, opinions are free. So, what is history? History is a continuous process of interaction between historians and their facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past. Finally, what is history in your heart? Give me your answer. Thank you.

• 批改教师：王思捷 ( 作文批改网 )
  批改时间：2016/10/18 16:40:59
  点评指数：
  点评内容：
  

  Hello everybody. Today I would like to talk about American history after ^the World War I. As we all know, the president of the United States during that time was Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who established Committee on Public Information and leaded (led) America through WWI（想表达什么意思呢？是克服了“一战”还是实现了“平稳过渡”？）. So he was a competent president, who helped the U.S. make great progress with sufficient knowledge and great ambition（这句话和前面没有因果关系，何来So...?而且so引导主从句的）. Do you agree with it? Do you agree with the opinion that he was a great one? But why. Why do you agree with it? Have you seen Wilson on your own? Or have you ever been in (to) America during that period? I mean you just make your judgement by the messages I gave you just now or by thoughts from other individuals, and you say:” it’s just the history in my eye.” However, sometimes reasonable suspicion will come out: Are the stories we learned true? Is the history we acquired right? The answer is certainly no.

       Of course, history does not mean facts that we chase for. But we can’t talk directly with the past to know the truths. We can only learn about it from people who are called historians. “The facts of history do not exist for any historian till he creates (record) them.”（这句话本身不合适了，“只有历史学家创造的历史才是历史”，与平日认知相左，把“创作”改为“记录”就合理多了。） The facts speak only when historians call on them like fish on the fishmonger’s slap. Historians collect them, take them home, cook and serve them in whatever style they （they指代不明）^were expected. Though (Although) historians make efforts to figure out the facts, reaching the true answer is still not so easy even they know that being accurate is a duty, not a virtue. 

      First, the facts of history never come to us purely, since they cannot exist in a pure form: They are always refracted through the recorder’s mind. It means that when we take up a paper of history or something related to history, our first concern (we) should be (concern) not only the facts which it (they) contains, but also the historians or the recorders who wrote it (them). The second point is historians need to have an imaginative understanding of the people with whom he is dealing and of the thought behind their acts. I say “imaginative understanding” rather than (not) “empathy,” because empathy is supposed to imply agreement. The third point is that we can review the past and obtain our understanding (cognition) of the past only through our own eyes. Maybe some historians are old and they are restricted by the conditions they used to live in. So facts they worked out could be more subjective, showing us in the form of interpretations and evaluations. Interpretations enters into every facts of history. They are a series of accepted judgments but not fact at all. You may say that the main work of the historian is to record rather than to evaluate, but if he does not evaluate, how can he know what is worth recording? Therefore subjective is inevitable. 

      So (Thus) Corce says that all history is “contemporary history”, it means that history consists essentially of seeing the past through the eyes of the present and the light of its problem. Different historian has different views on history and historical facts. It makes no sense to ask that whose opinion is perfectly right because facts are scared, opinions are free. So, what is history? History is a continuous process of interaction between historians and their facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past. Finally, what is history in your heart? Give me your answer. Thank you.

       作为一篇演讲稿，你的文章语言层面还是可以的，但是你把“什么是历史”这个颇有哲学意义的命题给笼统化、简单化了，而且在对待历史学家记录历史的态度上采取了片面、绝对的看法，造成了“除本人亲眼所见几无历史”之说，会引起思想上的混乱。