Subjective Objectivity

There is an entire educational curriculum based on the writings of Howard Zinn, the "historian" who wrote "The People's History of the United States". This is downright frightening when you consider one of Zinn's most famous quotes on objectivity:

"Why should we cherish “objectivity”, as if ideas were innocent, as if they don’t serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.

Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts.”

"Why should we cherish objectivity?", Mr. Zinn asked. I'm going to let you answer that question, friends. Is objectivity and accuracy something to strive for when examining our history, or should subjective anecdotes be retold as if they were fact, muddying our historical waters with conjecture and judgment?

You decide.

The decision was easy for Mr. Zinn. According to him, "There is no such thing as pure fact."