Every modern historians are at least a little bit biased towards either left or right

>every modern historians are at least a little bit biased towards either left or right

Intelligent people who stick to the facts and only care about the truth don't become historians.

It's normal for human to be biased.

Historians have always been biased. The fact that (most) historians have now become cognizant of their own biases and thus might be a bit more assertive about them doesn't change the fact that all historians were and are biased.

You can do a quite objective work If you are working in a subject that you are not naturally biased, (in example, do not work with history of islam if you are a staunch christian who believes mohammad was guided by satan, even then atheists are also biased towards religions) and stick to the evidence and evidence only, without any assumptions, this is what we have as evidence and we can't speak further due to lack of evidence and thats about it.

I think public is more biased than historians themselves, you don't get a lot of Victor Davis Hansens, but there are many who want to portray crusaders to fit their 21st century EVROPA nationalism, athens to modern democracy etc

your bias is showing

I feel like this only becomes really a problem in history books of more recent time periods. Historians tend to be fairly unbiased and objective when talking about past civilizations, it's only when it directly impacts modern day politics and ideologies when things start to get hairy.

exactly

You can't be biased if no truth hurts your feefees

On the other side, the modern history as a science allows us to feel more conected to past civilizations than before, I think, or atleast to do it for moe political reasons

There's no trend for religious historians to be biased to favor their own religious group?

>Rome fell because of DEGENERACY just like what we are currently experiencing!
>The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about states' rights!

I don't know about other religions but at least for Catholics, most tend to look at past popes in a pretty neutral way and will freely admit most of the heinous stuff that some of them did. I have heard pastors freely talk about popes ordering assassinations and having orgies so I doubt that many Catholic historians would be biased. But I guess it's possible that some "historians" would give an exceedingly biased account of their religion's past.

First of all random shitposters on /pol/ aren't historians.
Secondly, slavery in the US and the Civil War directly influence politics today: the civil war monuments being torn down and a lot of the white guilt you can find among certain people.

Not really actually. A lot of Catholic histories of some of the more colourful Popes are hilariously scathing

Do you guys know any rightwing historians? Modern historians are mostly libtrash. I usually read history books from the '50s or earlier, to avoid reading modern revisionism.

Not really a historian by any stretch but I am pretty sure the best selling history books in the last few years were written by Bill O'Reilly. Probably not completely unbiased either and definitely not as academic...

Nial Fergusson and David Starkey.

haha this is so fucking stupid oh my god

Every historian ever was biased. Even if you are as objective as possible getting the facts, you still have to analyze and make conclusions based on said facts which will undoubtably be affected by your human experience. A person who subscribes to any ideology/religion/philosophy will have it affect their work because that is how they interpret the world.

It seems to you that modern historians are biased because you have read prior works of older times and see them as objective, now when you read new interpreations of events you recognize patterns of modern thinking and influence. If you lived back in the day you would notice it in those writing as well, because they would either confirm or deny preconcieved notions of the left or the right at that time (or whatever bias you want to examine).

Also I fixed you pic for you

Niall "Ad Hominem" Fergusson.

This.
Even a work that appears to make no judgement has an inherent bias in the information it chooses to use. The best thing to do is get a handle on the different interpretations offered by different historians/historiographical trends and decide for yourself.

All professional history is arguing something. and no single person is free of bias, that is why there is a process to arrive at a consensus view

>tfw to intelligent to not be radical centrist