Unethical historians

Ever since a C-SPAN poll named Barack Obama as our 12th best president, I have been frustrated. I looked at how they came to the conclusion. They asked historians, primarily liberals in the schools, to provide their opinions. There was no objectivity.



I have repeatedly insisted that these results were essentially the collective opinion of liberal historians. In all honesty, that has been too kind. There are additional components that make this even worse.

What is the purpose of history? The general view on this is to learn from the past. Historians should strive to share with us factual information about the past. Opinions are not factual.

When I was in school, it was obvious that the history books were edited in order to push certain lessons on us. There were a lot of gaps. For example, they never explained why the North agreed to go to war when the South seceded. The best way to learn from the past is not to intentionally hide pieces of history in order to push an agenda, even if that agenda is valid.

To make matters worse, far too many people struggle to separate fact from opinion. I have seen numerous comments online where people treat these results as a factual representation of presidential performances. This absolutely defies common sense.

By subjectively ranking presidents, historians have effectively put the value of their own personal opinions over the facts. No ethical historian would ever hide the facts behind opinions. I would even say that no ethical historian would have been willing to participate in this poll.

I have already stated that this poll reflects the collective opinions of liberal historians. I can take this further. The C-SPAN poll that ranked Obama as our 12th best president reflects the collective opinions of unethical liberal historians.