Thomas Haskell believes that objectivity in history is an ideal that should be pursued in spite of the problematic nature of such an endeavor.
Haskell suggests that, instead of convincing those who already agree with your perspective, you should seek out those who disagree with you: Remaining neutral is not the role of the historian. By taking this position, Haskell is disagreeing with Novick, who claims that objectivity is neutrality and argues that “historians, as historians, must purge themselves of external loyalties” (1988, 2). In contrast, Haskell claims that “[t]o be dissatisfied with the view of the world as it initially appears to us, and to struggle to formulate a superior, more inclusive, less self-centered alternative, is to strive for detachment and aim at objectivity” (1990, 132).
In your initial post, argue a position in terms of the objectivity question. Is the goal of the historian to act as an activist or a judge? Or should the historian impartially report on the past? Is there potential for compromise between these two extremes? Use specific examples drawn from Haskell’s article