View the H-World Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-World home page.
Unaffiliated firstname.lastname@example.org While I would agree that it is not the primary task of a historian to judge, and certainly not before the utmost attempts at objective description and analysis, in many interesting subjects I fear judgments cannot be avoided. With all respect to honest attempts at value-free analysis, I doubt whether it is possible for a historian to restrict him/herself to pure description and analysis, free of all judgments. I have studied at Leiden and at an impressionable age I was confronted with many that taught in the sense of tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner - the favorite denial of judgment to hide a conservative judgment. In the first place, the choice of subject can hardly be free of value-judgments, if only that the subject is worthwhile to study. The choice of sources often reflect judgments as well - do you go for the archives or the statistics? And you cannot present all your material to the audience - judgment creeps into the selection. Leaving the judgment to the audience looks like preference for judgment by persons less well informed than yourself. That seems undue modesty to me.