There is no clear-cut definition of history due to the fact that each historian has a different frame-of-reference. Davis and Woodman discuss how there are three major definitions of history that are most commonly disputed. They are, history is the entire human past; history is all of recorded human past; and history is what historians write about history. Some historians believe geography should be included in the study of history because the geography of a region affects the people who live on it and the course of history. The definition will always be open and will forever cause contreversy among historians. According to some historians studying history can improve a society’s future and be very important and influential, but as with all aspects of history, other people such as Karl Marx believe history is just entertaining. Trevor-Roper believes there is the factor of historical revenge. He gives the example of nationalism in nineteenth-century China. The government in China believed that once the intial wave of nationalism was stopped it would never come back, but they were wrong as you can see by the events leading up to the protests at Tiennaman Square in China in the latter part of the 20th century. Dr. Allan Nevins agrees with Trevor-Roper when he says the past, present, and future are interrelated. Trevor-Roper’s prediction for the future of Chinese nationalism is that there will be waves of nationalism until the fight for the cause prevails. Writers help the historians who believe history is just entertaining by dressing it up for each occasion according to Trevor-Roper. Trevor-Roper also believes it is best for a historian to study all perspectives of one part of history so that he can make his own interpretations. As previously mentioned, there are different uses of history dependent on what the historians frame of referemce is. For history to be accurately studied, it must be written. For historians to write history, they must study all perspectives and decide what to write by considering what they feel is important. If the event the author is writing about is recent enough that there are still some primary sources available, they will usually get information from that source. If there is no primary source, the historian will then try to retrieve information from secondary sources. Once a source is found a historian wants to find out why something happened. For example, if a teacher wants to know why a student is late and the student responds, “ because I overslept”, that would be proximate cause. Then some historians would go even further and find out why they overslept. A fundamental or secondary cause would be because the alarm clock wasn’t set. Sometimes the historians go even further by asking why wasn’t the alarm clock set. After a certain point the facts become irrelevant. Many historians feel it is only necessary to know the proximate cause. Just like the other two aspects of history, there is more than one view of how history should be written. It is obvious that history is the study of perspectives, and that the definition, its uses, and how it is written are important aspects. The study of history gives society the information that can and will improve the life present and future.