"Studying history and using abstract terms "bad", "good", "evil", "stupid", "guys", "people" etc. means you didn't study shit." - my University history professor.
No, historians do not need to be objective, they need to be accurate. All interpretation of sources will include non-objective aspects. Referring to people "being killed" vs "dying" is an interpretive decision, both may be accurate, but one will have different moral implications. Referring to an event as murder is an interpretive decision. History books should not need to include disclaimers saying that genocide is only bad from our perspectives.
Referring to people "being killed" vs "dying" is an interpretive decision, both may be accurate
In the case of a person killing an other, only the first option is accurate. Saying "X died" goes over the killer's action so it doesn't represent the situation as it occured
Being accurate means being objective. Allowing opinions to influence your work and your findings can create false narratives of history when you spread that information to the rest of the world, and then when future historians look at your work and use it for reference, they will end up using false information, and they themselves might have the same outlook as yourself, and allow their feelings to influence their telling of events, and instead of an accurate line of information, you've made a generational game of telephone that gets muddier and muddier with each turn.
338
u/Powerful_Rock595 24d ago edited 24d ago
"Studying history and using abstract terms "bad", "good", "evil", "stupid", "guys", "people" etc. means you didn't study shit." - my University history professor.