Is it possible to write history objectively

Zinn has never failed to elicit a strong reaction. For some, the book has been an epiphany , an antidote to rote learning of abstracted history , and an emancipatory experience. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers.

But it is also prima facie evidence that the problem most critics have with Zinn, and critical scholarship in general, reflects an unwillingness to engage with what History actually is. And those things are bad. There are facts, and there are historical facts. Lots of people said things in front of the Brandenburg Gate. But Ronald Reagan was apparently the only one to do so historically.

But the idea of an objective version of history-telling, from which all others are deviant, is an absurdity. There is no objectivity in History. Therefore, this paper aims at examining the nature of history and problems of objectivity in historical research. Please use the link above to donate via Paypal. AJOL is a non-profit, relying on your support.

Historical objectivity is not attainable because of three factors such as- the nature of historical events, the selection of historical events and the personality of the author, his motives intentions and temperament. Historian works under certain limitations.

All the facts or events are not well preserved or stored for him. The source material or evidence that might have contained facts might have been destroyed, or those who recorded the events might not have observed very well or even if they observed, they might have, deliberately omitted to record them.

The historian himself be a victim of ideological considerations, political thoughts and commitment, group prejudice, national feelings, patriotic zeal and partisan attitude. Ideological considerations such as theological, philosophical, materialistic or any other intellectual bias might distort his vision. He is not free from his own viewpoint.

The whole ranges of medieval chronicles have a direct impact of political prejudice. The historical material of medieval Empire contains lot of distorted material.

Religious superiority, racial prejudice, group affiliations, national pride, party inclination and connection, social inhibition, linguistic inclinations have influenced the historical writings. The racial complexion also mars the objectivity of the history such as English vs. Indian historians. The exponents of the philosophy of history have generally followed such a selective approach as to establish that history has worked along a set pattern.

Certain other factors too might stand in the way of objectivity such as political pressure, party loyalties, religious fanaticism etc. To allow the full scope for imagination would be to reduce history to the level of fiction. To reconcile ourselves to the presence of subjectivity, which enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past. Some people have gone so far as to say that the closest we can get to what actually happened is to believe what the records say actually happened.