SpheresOfBalance wrote:The pursuit of 'objective' history assumes the 'objective' writings of it's authors. If in fact the writers were not objective, then history can never be pursued objectively.
Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how objective the reader.
I suppose that's true to some extent. If there is only one source on a subject, it can be difficult to judge its veracity. But one can still try to be objective about what the author has conveyed. It's not always about delving for "truth" (
ding an sich). That's mainly a philosophical question. Even if an author's reputation was as a complete scalawag, one can ask many questions about the source that are important to history.
The question, "What really happened," is an important one. But it seems people get so hung up on that as to miss what else a source can say. Don't think that if the evidence is tainted toward answering that one question that it has no historical value.
Did the work of this scalawag influence other's of his time?
Despite being a scalawag, did he achieve what he sought?
Scalawags often manipulate people by assessing what is important to them and turning those public concerns into private profit. So, what do the methods of this particular scalawag say about what was important to the people he interacted with?
