fallacious objectivity II

"...patrizi, at the turn of the century, declares that all history ultimately rests on eye-witness evidence: and argues that those present are likely to involved in the issues and are therefore likely to be partisan..." isaiah berlin. "the divorce between the sciences and humanities"...one more nail in the coffin of objective history...since history is made up of multiple and obviously partisan viewpoints, written to support and propagate those views there are no "true" questions in history because there is no one answer that is immutable as there is in mathematics, physics, biology, or other sciences...well...since history is an accounting of human affairs how could one expect objectivity...one cannot...but does that invalidate its recounting? i heard an interview with an air force drone pilot on the bbc this past week...he said he was part of missions in afghanistan and the "tribal regions" of pakistan...he discussed how being a video gamer throughout his adolescence prepared him for drone piloting and some of the more routine aspects of the "job"...he also went on to recount why he left the air force when his first enlistment was up...he was part of a mission that was supposed to kill suspected terrorists in afghanistan in a compound where he was assured women and children were sleeping in one building and the "bad guys" in another...as he fired the hellfire missiles he saw a figure he though was a child run from one building to the next just as the projectiles exploded...when he reported what he had seen he was told it was "a dog" and not to worry about it...dissatisfied he bumped it up a notch on the chain of command ( "when your chain of command fails they tell you to skip a link" )...there he was told not to worry about it and to shut up about it, "it was a dog"...he said that at that point he began to question the validity of every order he was given and that he left the military as soon as possible thereafter...that child went down the official "memory hole" and he couldn't stomach that...leave it to the military to awaken and enhance an ethical sense in the grunts who do the killing and dying and make them want to talk about it...a subjective viewpoint no doubt...and history too...the lack of what his former superiors and the freaks in the cia and nsa would call "objectivity" and a sense of "the broader picture" certainly leap out in it...it does not invalidate the content or the questions it raises..."objective" or not, it is still valid.