Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
This was one of a constant stream of painting characters on the corporate side with negate phrasing (coldly), and snide asides that - as far as I could tell - had no reason to be there except to prejudice the reader.
Perhaps Roeder did say it coldly and perhaps he really did think the women were insignificant, but he might just as well have genuinely not recalled, because a number of years had passed. (If it was just this one example I'd let it pass, but there are a great many more.)
|
Isn't it legitimate for a historian to interpret, based on her knowledge and research? Do you think she should have limited herself to simply copying the trial transcript? (Copying it full, I suppose, since otherwise one might claim she was biased in her selection of what to include.)
Quote:
 This only proves that even a century on, people can still disagree on the subject - proving that there can indeed be more than one way to look at these things. I can only ask you to believe that I am not an evil, mean-spirited person. I do care, I just don't think that - back then especially - it was as simple as you would have it. ... But we've been through that.
|
People can disagree, but that doesn't mean there's equal validity to every point of view. There's evidence on one side, and only excuses and alibis and claims of ignorance on the other. It is simple.