- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
That is precisely what historians do. That is their job. They take evidence, sketchy as it will be the further back in history they delve, and place an interpretation on it, for the consumption of contemporaries. That's what Virgil did, what Gibbons did, and what historians have always done.Historians do not editorialize as to why they think events happened and then pass that off as history because its not history its political commentary or social commentary.
That is what 'objectivists' have done. It's not universally accepted that it is possible to remain 'neutral' in analysing historical data. We are all constrained by context.In true historic research, the historian tries to remain as neutral as possible as to what he or she reports.
A pure historian maintaining such a discipline is no different then atrue journalist. Today both suffer from people who editorialize and selectively intercept and rewrite history to reflect the subjective opinions of the observer. The lack of objectivity in analyis is what renders there work lacking in credibility.Their bias causes them to make an assumption, then simply remove historic events from their actual context to back up these assumptions. That is not how historians work.That is how someone with a subjective bias presents his arguements and justifies his bias.
Then you must point to a historian who has been able to overcome their socio-political perspective and present empirically 'pure' data and not engage in subjective analysis of it. I don't believe such purity exists.
Its no different then someon who sees the Virgin Mary in a gravy stain. People like Pappe and Morris see the face because that is what they set out to see. An historian would see no face of Mary, just a gravy stain and report it is being interpreted by different people in different ways and how some see it as Mary and others as Mr. Big.
Then why attack Pappé and Morris and not those who interpret historical data in an opposite direction? Are you saying that because a certain academic wave of opinion disagrees with them, they are not objective and the conflicting academic wave IS objective?
I'm hoping that I am arguing, not against or in favour of one particular strand of thought, but in favour of a sense of pluralistic rather than 'objectivist' perspectives. There are many interpretations to be placed on historical 'fact', and few of them approach an objective 'truth'.