Being a historian and working to share information leads to many important questions, even before primary research begins:
What does it mean to be a "moral" or "ethical" historian?
"Does that mean one presents the story, holding all viewpoints in fair regard?" What if one can't? Is it wrong to publish a thesis, manuscript, or even create a museum/public historical space and not write in regard to another side of the aisle? This can get even more complicated when one side is wrong, but then the question arises of "what is wrong"? All these questions began to formulate in my head during a class discussion about pseudohistory. The discussion was heavily prompted by a talk about the Holocaust denial trial of David Irving versus Deborah Lipstadt. (https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/holocaust-denial-trial-who-david-irving-deborah-lipstadt-richard-j-evans/)
I think after hearing what my classmates shared for their insights, the professor's thoughts and what I had shared that I have come to a few ideas. If you agree, or disagree, I would be interested to hear your take. I believe that an "ethical" or "moral" historian possesses the following characteristics:
1) Working to present as full and complete view of the story as possible.
2) Be able to recognize that some views/perspectives are not (and perhaps will never be fully understood) always represented.
3) Not put down the other side simply for the fact that you disagree with its opinions. Key word: opinions. "Facts are stubborn things" as John Adams once said. If their (opposing sides) facts are wrong, you have an obligation to fix that. Going about fixing these mistakes will take much time and open discourse. This may not come easily. But people must learn what is right.
These points being said, history is about sharing perspectives, and attempting to bring out a side of a story. But squashing one side entirely is wrong.
One of the biggest challenges is what to do if you know one side to be entirely wrong. We know the Holocaust happened. So how does one give a permission to such a horrific stance? And my answer is the following: WE DON'T. It's a harsh and blanket statement, but it must be said. History is about truth over peace. As Gloria Steinem once said, "the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off." So as a historian, I believe that a moral historian must share what is the truth. Of course, it could take a lot of time, energy, and resources to discover what the truth is.
I guess this leads to another major question: is history about absolute truths? We know and can understand that the world does not exist in a bubble, and especially in regards to history.
The right fight for a historian is the truth. The crusade for truth is what historical research is and should be. Truth takes precedence. If historians are not presenting the truth, then who will?
I realize that I asked a lot of major, really heavy questions this week. But hopefully, if you're reading this, you take the time to find some good answers and be able to understand why history is important and what gives it relevance in our world today.