The speaker claims that learning about the historical past requires creativity. The reasoning is that because we cannot know the past directly, we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, and artifacts. While I concede that history cannot be known directly, I do not think that creativity is necessary in producing historical accounts. History is, by definition, an account of what has happened, written or spoken, in the past. The historian therefore must consider the evidence and draw conclusions about it. There is no creativity involved in collecting this information. It is a straightforward task

The speaker goes on to say that historical accounts, documents, and artifacts are the building blocks of learning about history. Here, he refers to those accounts, documents, and artifacts that prove or disprove historical events. Again, my view is that creativity is not necessary here. Historians can examine these documents and artifacts and draw their conclusions. There is no creativity involved

Furthermore, the speaker claims that historians must imaginatively interpret historical accounts, documents, and artifacts. Here, he refers to the process of connecting these events to the past by identifying cause and effect. Again, I do not see this task as requiring creativity. A historian can, for example, use deductive reasoning, considering the type of evidence available. If historians can logically conclude that a particular event caused another, then they must imaginatively interpret the evidence. However, a historian cannot simply assume that a cause exists simply because another event occurred. For example, if historians assume that the burning of Atlanta caused the Civil War, then they need to understand the historical antecedents, the social and political factors that caused people to be angry, and the economic factors that fueled this anger. This is not an easy question to answer, but creativity is not required

The speaker next states that the historian cannot know what the past was like, only what the evidence tells us. I disagree with this assertion. Historians do know what the past was like, and they use the evidence to reconstruct the past. For example, if the historian discovers that the house in which Abraham Lincoln lived as a child burned down, then the historian knows that the Lincoln family did not live in the house for the rest of their lives. If the historian discovers that an ax was the weapon used to kill Lincoln’s father, then the historian knows that this ax was not used to kill Lincoln’s subsequent father or grandparents. Without this information, historians would not be able to make accurate conclusions about the Lincoln family

The speaker concludes by stating that imagination is necessary in reconstructing the past. I agree that imagination is required, but I do not believe that creativity is required.