However, you say… “First, is historical “objectivity” truly attainable? Historians are first and foremost a product of something. They bring with them ethos and beliefs that permeate everything they do, this cannot be avoided. Alas, they are human.”

Sure, we are all human and a product of something (our thinking has been shaped by multiple things over time). However, is it not possible to be/become aware of our “leanings” and realize that these might be impacting our ability to consider other possibilities? Lack of objectivity sounds a lot like being unable to budge in our thinking, and I don’t think that is the case. While historians may not be 100% objective, I think it is worthwhile to seek out objectivity within ourselves in the way we relate history to others.

“This brings me to my second point, where does passion belong in the writing of history? I thought that without it, you would have history void of a human quality. History was boring without a passionate storyteller.”

I think it is fine to be passionate, as long as it does not end up overpowering the presentation. We have to be passionate, to some degree. We find something that we think is important to consider, we get excited and even passionate about it; but how often have we read things from historians and non-historians in their delivery of history when we can start to detect passion moving closer to something akin to a “love-fest?” I suppose that we need to be conscious that passion is best served like most other things… in moderation.

“Finally, what is historical truth? Is it what historians deem worthy of study and what evidence is important or not? Are historians more guardians of social and/or political movements than truth seekers?”

The historical truth point… now that is something worthy of lengthy discussion, and I’m going to have to give it some thought. I’m afraid that “historical truth” may be that which is perceived to be truth at a specific point in time, and that popular history ultimately ends up trumping a good deal of historical fact. Historical truth also, I believe, varies in different audiences; but because someone thinks their idea of truth is right, does it make it so? In terms of the academic historian, this inevitably loops back, I think, to the ability to be self-aware in our presentation of our findings and the ability to identify the flaws in our thinking before we present the findings. When we are ready to present an argument or our findings, do we always think about how long what we believe will be able to stand as “accepted truth?” Should we not be conscious of other evidence compromises the ability of the findings/argument to stand as truths and should we not remember to present that which may compromise that which we think “might” be the truth?