Dear list members.

I heard about an argument that I would like the list to comment on.

A friend was arguing with an historian, trained in folklore, who states
that only historians are objective enough to study history because they
do not have any theoretical bias. She asserts that because anthropology
and sociology create models to understand cultural change they have an
inherent bias, whereas their lack of theory makes historians objective
(which I find interesting because I think many historians would agree
that there is no such thing as true objectivity). Moreover because
historians simply look for facts and then present them without any
biases or models it makes history a humanity and not a social science.
It also makes history the only discipline able to study history,
culture, cultural change, etc.

I know that someone was putting together a session at the SHA's on the
differences between history and  anthropology, are any of the speakers
interested in commenting?

Michael Strutt
Center for Historic Preservation
Middle Tennessee State University