Context: A new debate is heating up in the world of historians - should history have an ethical agenda? To put it simply, should we use history as a tool to fix past wrongs and acknowledge those whose suffering has been hidden for too long?

Example: Imagine if we were to look at the history of candy. Now, most of us enjoy the sweet, mouth-watering sensation of candy. However, the history of candy might not be as sweet. It involves exploitation of workers, especially children, in sugar plantations. Unveiling such hidden suffering could lead to better awareness and change in the present.

Context: A big part of this debate relies on the belief that an objective history – a history that's entirely unbiased – is an unattainable goal. If that's the case, then history should serve ethical purposes.

Example: Think about watching a football game. As an ardent fan of Team A, you might think the referee is biased against your team, while a fan of Team B thinks the opposite. That's because we all have our perspectives, and so do historians. So, can there ever be a truly 'objective' recount of history

Context: Historian William Gallois suggests that history's lack of attention to ethics has led it to perpetuate injustices.

Example: Let's say we're studying the history of music and focusing solely on western classical music, ignoring contributions from other cultures. This approach would unintentionally perpetuate the injustice of disregarding non-western musical traditions.