Same Topic, Different Conclusion: Varying Viewpoints in Historical Study

Every historian will have his or her own view of the past, based on what he or she brings to the project. People from different backgrounds will bring different talents to their field of study. These varying viewpoints make history more interesting to study, because they allow historians to debate over meaning, significance, and interpretation of events.

Nowhere is this more evident than in American diplomatic history, which, as Walter LaFeber points out in his essay "Liberty and Power: U.S. Diplomatic History, 1750 - 1945," has gone through multiple interpretations, all of which can be viewed as correct. The main variations between the historians which LaFeber discusses are the time period in which they live and the school of thought to which they belong, which are often connected. The realists and the revisionists, for example, have different ways of interpreting history, but both views are correct. Realists prefer the "great men" view of history, looking at American politics and diplomatic achievements through the lens of those who, in their views, affected the policies the most. The revisionists, on the other hand, take a wider view, emphasizing instead the importance of economic stresses and foreign policy.

An excellent example of the differences between these two schools of thought is the "open door policy" put into place in China by the United States' Secretary of State, John Hay, at the end of the nineteenth century. George F. Kennan, a realist historian, argued in his book American Diplomacy 1900 - 1950 that the position was bad for the United States because they were manipulated into it by the British. This was due, according to Kennan, to Washington's inability to turn from "misplaced faith in legalisms and morality" or to prevent manipulation by other powerful nations (Foner 377). It was a better representation of British interests in China than American (377). However, according to William Appleman Williams, a revisionist historian, this theory is completely wrong. Williams wrote in his book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy that the open door policy was "engineered not by British officials but by U.S. leaders who fully understood, and were determined to expand, their nations' economic interests" (378).

Both of interpretations of the open door policy are completely valid. Both Kennan and Williams were able to look at the same events and come away with different conclusions because of what they chose to focus on. Because Kennan chose to focus on "great men" and the major political figures, he found one viewpoint; because Williams chose to focus on the economic factors, he found another. Neither one is more important or more correct than the other - they just look at the topic differently.

This is by no means the only example of changing viewpoints within LaFeber's essay. There are many topics for which this is true, and many other groups of historians who have different focuses than revisionists and realists. However, it provides a good example of how historians can interpret events differently, and yet still have a correct interpretation.