What are the intellectual problems that historians need to be concerned with?

I not sure this is what your looking for but, I always wondered if historians or history teachers can be truly objective.

Example : A high school history teacher that is a hard core republican. Could that teacher teach objectively about Nixon and Watergate or Reagan and the Iran - Contra Scandal, or would they try to hide some of the facts ? or vice versa for a democratic teacher and Clinton's problems. How do we know this doesn't happen ?

I've seen some answers on here that tell me the answerer obviuosly didn't know about the Iran - Contra Scandal or Watergate.

This could apply to many subjects and historians from different countries also.

There are a few recent trends in history. One has been an attack on the "great man" theory of history. Historians are more interested in "social history", ie the history of individual slobs. Rather than studying the actions and ideas of Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell or Washington, they focus on the life of everyday people. Economic trends, social norms, even clothing and diet are the focus of many historians. That's fine, as long as the major actors in history are not ignored or relegated to the footnotes.

Even greater than the attack on the "great man" histories, is the attack on "white man" histories. Whole programs of African Studies, Women's Studies and others are attempting to destroy the paradigm of white christian european history. This is a byproduct of muliticulturalism, and again in moderation is helpful.

There are problems with this trend. Historians glorify non-Europeans and demonize Europeans, and have a political agenda behind their studies. Listening to some historians, all non-Europeans lived in utopias where there was no slavery, no wars, no subjugation of women. That of course is crap. The history of any people will be full of as much violence as the history of any other. Every group has dominated or been dominated by others, depending on their relative power.

Second, it dismisses the scientific and cultural progress of Europeans that led to modernity. Most "post modernists" are really pre modernists, romantic idealists for whom traditional peoples (excluding traditional christians) are to be praised and their culture preserved--no matter how backward or primitive they may be.

Anyway, you can probably tell I'm more interested in the great man theory of history. The majority of people throughout history have lived short, brutish lives, full of depravation. It's important to remember that. But, excluding great epochs of change (Russian revolution and French revolution, for example), the masses of people are not actors in history, merely fodder for the actions of others.

Historians should try and think of a way to apply the lessons they learned from past events to present ones, they should stop studying history and be more concerned of applying it.

A good historian is not one that learns events but one that interprets them and studies their effects in modern day society. They should ultimately try and pose the questions "What would the world be like if event X hadn't happened or happened in a different period of time?". They should then realize the importance of that event and try to imagine the consequences of a world in which that event in history did not happen.

That is the ultimate goal...!

I'm reporting you for being bald. I hope your question gets deleted.

I didn't understand anything 8-|