“厚今薄古”的方针提出后,我们理解得很简单。肤浅地片面地认为“厚今薄古”不过是多研究些近代、现代史,少研究些古代史;多讲些近代、现代史,少讲些古代史,下学年在古代、近代、现代各门历史课的授课时间比重上由上级规定作点调整就行了。这是课本编者的事,与我们关系不大。对方针的实质没有深入细致全面地思考。后来,我们看了范老的文章以及北京、上海等地史学界讨论这个方针的报导,我们才逐步认识到“厚今薄古”和“厚古薄今”乃是史学界中“兴无灭资”和“兴资灭无”两条路线的斗争。“言必三代”多研究多讨论古代史,少研究 After the policy of “thick and ancient” was put forward, we understood it very simply. It is superficial and one-sided that “thick and thin ancient” is only more to study modern times and modern history, less to study some ancient history; to talk more about modern times and modern history, less about ancient history, next academic year in ancient times, modern times and modern times History of the door taught the proportion of time by superiors to make some adjustments on the line. This is a textbook editor, and we have little to. The essence of the principle is not thoroughly and comprehensively thinking. Later, when we read the articles by Fan Lao and the historians and scholars in Beijing and Shanghai to discuss this guideline, we gradually realized that “thick and thin ancient” and “ancient and modern” Capital “and” Xing funding off “two lines of struggle. The ”Three Musts" study more about ancient history, less research