Can historians be objective?

         History teaches value, who we are and it tells us about the past.  The Important of History, by David Crabtree demonstrates that history teaches those three aspects and more. In this reading David Crabtree illustrates 3 different perspectives of three different historians on who was Christopher Columbus. Which of these responses are true? Which of these are false? Can historians be objective?

A. Morison, a historian, admires Christopher Columbus. He believes that Columbus was convinced that Asia could easily be reached by sailing west across the Atlantic. In this small reading about A. Morison, he states how Christopher Columbus found land on the other side of the world according to him. How can we be sure this is the truth? In this reading it says “Columbus argued that the scholarly opinion greatly overestimated the distance…” Columbus argued? How are we sure he did, do we have facts? These are the questions arise while I’m reading this writing. Peter Marshall has an unalike viewpoint. Peter believes that Columbus is a key figure in God’s grand plan to establish a very special country. He’s sensitive to indications of God’s divine guidance and protection for Columbus’ venture and Columbus’ personal relationship with God. Marshall shows writings of Columbus’ voyage that support his writing. Is the historian telling being objective or is this his opinion? Howard Zinn thinks of Columbus as the oppressor. “They…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for glass beads and hawks’ bells. They…” Zinn believed this statement is evidence that from the very beginning Columbus was eager to asses the exploitability of the native inhabitants. This account is very different from A. Morison’s and Peter Marshall. So the question is, can historians be objective.

         My opinion is that historians can not be objective. Somehow they add something from their point of view. Sometimes it not too much evidence that shows that the writing is not objective. The point is that I believe that historians cannot be objective because nobody knows the truth unless they were present in the past.

“History is the story about the past that is significant and true.”
- David Crabtree’s Advisor of Graduate School