Hey guys!! So I just wanted to share my opinions on some of the issues being discussed. It's been really interesting to read all the different opinions on historical points of contention, I feel like by reading what other people think it's made it much easier for me to be like "Oh yeah that makes heaps of sense, I agree with that" or to be "I see where you're coming from but I kinda disagree with that point." So basically here are my views on a few of the debates-
Historical Objectivity
Obviously, this is a big one and makes an appearance in a lot of the past exams I've been going through. Personally, I agree with the idea that history can never be objective, and as there is a multitude of biases that just pile up in any historical work- the bias of the sources used, the bias of the historian themselves- but I do think they historians should strive to produce the most objective truth possible. I think the idea of Carr that "history is interpretation" is really resonant because really the study of the history is a way of looking at past events using a number of different perspectives to grasp some idea of what occurred, but in my opinion the main purpose of history is to learn from previous societies/ways of thinking and so working around the plethora of perspectives is integral to establishing some sort of basis for historical facts. I say "historical facts" and not objective facts, because whilst a complete version of the truth is unattainable, there is some a number of historical facts we can't dispute as some of you have discussed (like the Holocaust, Stolen Generation etc.) I feel like my view kind aligns with Richard Evans (the guy that worked on the Irving vs Lipstadt case) to an extent because he really pushed for the fact that historians need to find some mutual ground and establish facts of history that can't be refuted.
Historical Fiction
I actually did my project on this, looking at the television show The Tudors and discussing whether it had a place in the 21st century. Now for any of you who have watched The Tudors, you'll know that whilst its a good watch, it completely butchers the reign of King Henry VIII. In my essay, I ended up arguing that it did have a place in the historical discipline though, because I reckon that history is a public discipline and thus requires recognition in order to maintain its esteem. Obviously, most of the general public aren't going to read complex history books for fun (unlike most of us I'm guessing) but I think that historical fiction generates an interest in people that is so vital in increasing historical awareness. The way I see it, if someone watches a historical fiction show like The Tudors, they'll either enjoy it and move on with some (admittedly skewed) extra knowledge about the Tudor period or they'll find a passion for the era and do their own research into the details of historical accuracy, and viola! we have another fellow history buff. I know there are obviously detriments to portraying incorrect information, but I feel like history is losing its place a bit in our society, and historical fiction is a way (not a perfect one but a way) in regenerating that interest.
Wow even if nobody replies to this thread, it's been really nice to just put all the ideas in my head and into actual tangible words aha. Goodluck to all the extension history students this year!