[Steel Wolf]

History has to be interpreted through a point of view, and no one is truly neutral. Even with that admission, there's a lot of play involved in how you want to present your topic. For instance, take the following two sentances about the same event:. I admit this is a very minimalized example of what we're discussing, but bear with me.

- Muslims killed 500 people at Alexandria for failing to pay the jizya tax.

- Muslims killed 500 people at Alexandria because they're intolerant jerks.

Sure, both sentences are true, but honestly, I don't need the morality of the event spoon fed to me. I just want to know what happened and why. I realize that some people feel slighted if the full moral dimension of the story isn't added, but I would argue that it's preferable for historians to play it as straight as possible, and let future generations draw their own conclusions.

[achilles2000]

The informational content of the two sentences is different, which partly accounts for your preference.

Here we go: “Muslims, because they were intolerant jerks, killed 500 people at Alexandria for failing to pay the jizya tax.” ;-)