[Skybird]

I disagree with Platapus if he puts it the way he did. Historical analysis must - necessarily and unavoidably! - base on the present of the analyst's own time to explain what what went good and what went wrong and why. But, and I think that is what Platapus wanted to say, we must of course also consider how things looked like from perspective of those living in the past and during past events. I must however object to letting the latter completely replace the first. And as already said, it also is impossible to see past things only from past perspectives. We cannot, even if we want, because we do not share past people's perspectives and canot just get the present out of our minds. Also, what we think past people'S perspectives were, not so much is always secured knowledge of ours, but just our assumptions. Even historic events we cannot be certain of to have happened as we describe them nowadays in history books. Just look for example how fundamentally the narration on the Roman-Germanic battle in the Teutoburger Forest has changed, and how we have changed our tale on the later Roman reaction, and even the battlefield'S location we had to move in past years!



Of course it is also totally wrong to ignore past contexts and only judge things by present standards, like certain lobby groups and extremist special interest groups try to enforce today.



I think of history as an academic branch as just the attempt to reflect on the past in as much an objective way as is possible for us. Always knowing that objectivity cannot be reached in total completeness.