History is evidence put down on paper, but the interpretation of that evidence is what makes it unobjective. Yes, dates, places, and persons can be substantiated, but the why cannot be. The whys are opinions - unobjective opinions.

Why was the American Civil War fought? Was it slavery alone, or was it states' rights alone, or was it something else? Your opinion is as good as anyone else's. That is what removes the objectivity from the subject.

What is the basis of the American Revolution? Is it taxation without representation? Those taxes were small & miniscule in comparison to the taxes levied on the British home citizens? Perhaps Navigation Acts ushering in mercantilism had a factor. The colonies weren't permitted to sell their goods or resources where they chose to do so, thus styming the colonial economy. Or was it more to do with the Writs of Assistance, which permitted British authorities to search private homes for contraband items? Could a theory as simple as these third and fourth generation colonists were no longer English, but Americans be possible? Perhaps something as basic as the colonist felt the monarchy was infringing on their basic God-given liberties. John Locke expounded on that subject.

Objectivity means absolute facts. History has some of those, but much of it is speculation as to how those facts were applied in any one particular situation, thus making history unobjective in some situations.

Learn more about this author, Sherrie Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Why history can never be objective?
We want to hear your view. Write now!