If you are interested in joining future Face Off debates, fill out this form to submit your application.
For: Hayley Sum Yui-ching, 16, St Paul’s Convent School
History classes should strive for objectivity, meaning there should be no bias or judgment when presenting historical facts.
Leopold von Ranke, the founder of modern source-based history, hoped to reveal the past “how it essentially was”. He believed that the past could not be judged by the standards of the present.
An educator’s main goal should be to convey academic objectivity. This can be done through encouraging evidence-based arguments and incorporating ethical guidelines into research.
Instilling the importance of impartiality in historical studies is paramount for building a solid foundation for further learning. British medievalist David Knowles rejected moral judgment as an aspect of history, expressing, “The historian is not a judge, still less a hanging judge,” (known for harsh sentencing).
Objectivity goes hand in hand with Knowles’ sentiment. Moral biases are likely to interfere with our understanding of the past and act as a barrier to good scholarship.
For example, teaching the history of the transatlantic slave trade guided by values would focus heavily on the practice being morally biased or evil. However, using facts and figures would allow us to learn about slavery’s repercussions, showing how it oppressed the weak, involved cruelty and caused deaths.
Students learn to think critically when history teachers do not tint material with moral judgments. Removing this so-called lens ensures that students do not accept knowledge at face value but take the effort to uncover the truth.
As Italian historian Benedetto Croce muses, “All history is contemporary history.” Here, he suggests all history is written from the perspective of the present, whether consciously or not. In other words, we are guided by present beliefs and concerns when appraising the past.
But objective learning should still be the target, as students may not yet understand such nuances. This approach is straightforward, reducing confusion for newer learners of history.
Learning history is a long and winding road. Teachers of history should therefore aid students in their journey by passing on values of impartiality and academic integrity. Only through objective teaching can students learn a version of history that is untainted by personal beliefs.
Against: Madeleine Wong, 18, German Swiss International School
Objectivity means standing for what is true and real. But it may also imply a complete disregard for the personal opinions, values and emotions of individuals. It would be too difficult for history classes to be completely objective.
History is the story of humans in the past. We teach it not to promote rote memorisation – repeating facts and figures until you learn them by heart – but to enhance critical thinking. In other words, to understand the world around us and the people in it.
“Objective history” is an oxymoron and therefore impossible. History is so intrinsically human; it is complicated. To be completely “objective” would mean choosing one narrative over not just another, but many others.
Who has the right to decide what is “objective”?
Delegating this authority would be challenging. Knowledgeable historians are opinionated and belong to a school of thought. This means they support a particular perspective on a given historical subject. If we were to steer away from historians, we would be left with individuals who lack the expertise needed to make fair judgments.
You could aim for objectivity by focusing on dry, hard facts and figures. For instance, Nazis killed around 6 million Jewish people and 5 million others during the Holocaust in Europe, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Korea was divided along the 38th Parallel shortly after World War II.
What I think is fundamentally wrong with this approach is that it focuses solely on who and what, leaving little room for why and how. Teaching history in this way trains students to accept facts at face value without understanding the bigger picture behind them.
For instance, why were the Nazis antisemitic? Why did former US President Harry S Truman decide to drop two atomic bombs on Japan? And why did the US and the Soviet Union divide Korea at the 38th Parallel (the militarised border between modern-day North and South Korea)? Given the same information, even the most intelligent and logical people could come up with very different interpretations.
The why and how in history cannot be memorised like a list of figures. History class discussions should teach students how to evaluate sources and form well-grounded opinions.
