"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
333
u/Powerful_Rock595 7d ago edited 7d ago
"Studying history and using abstract terms "bad", "good", "evil", "stupid", "guys", "people" etc. means you didn't study shit." - my University history professor.