I didn't know where else to ask this, but I thought you guys might have some answers.
Its weird but i get super depressed reading about people like Hitler, Mao but especially Genghis Khan. I hate him with a passion like no other. Even though I love history I can't stand to read anything about him. Its just too mentally distressing. Here's someone that killed, raped and plundered innocent men women and children and he got away with it dying a comfortable death. And still goes down in history as this amazing person Mongolians still look up too this day. Fuck them.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way. But it really pains me to read about how unstoppable the evil the cruelty was. It weirdly enough was a big factor in making me an exmuslim and also a weird sort of ego blow since my ancestry is from places the Mongols plundered. It also made me question justice, god and morality. All in all it's had a significant negative impact on my life. The opposite of what reading about the Spartans at the therompylae pass I guess.
How do you (historians) deal with this? Do you just accept pure evil and embrace nihilism? That hasn't worked for me so far....
The short answer is, you don't separate out emotion, and that can and does make the study and discussion of terrible events and crimes hard to deal with. Contrary to the 'realz not feelz' attitude that seems to be awfully popular among many Redditors, empathy is a central part of understanding, and writing, history. Not to preclude further discussion, but I strongly encourage you to read this Monday Methods post penned by /u/commiespaceinvader a few weeks ago, which I hope you will find both relevant and interesting.
History would in a perfect world, be purely exegetic - we would only draw out information and interpretation of the past from the past itself and from the sources that we have. We would describe, and not prescribe.
However, this is an ideal that can never really be met. No one is without bias or individual interpretation - and history is full of complex and serious moral questions - even if they happened far in the past. I've seen fierce moral debates between historians and history enthusiasts about the morality of the actions of certain ancient rulers.
With events closer to us - I don't know a historian who would read or write on the Holocaust, on WW2 or on the various atrocities of colonialism and be so sterile as to not make moral comment or express empathy for those that suffered.
The reality is that objectivity and unbiased, non-judgemental history is an ideal - historians however, frequently make moral and ethical arguments about the past, and in most cases they do so out of sincerity - it is more important that they when they make those arguments - that they make them with evidence and engagement with the source material and the time itself.
Historians have seen the details of their periods of study many times and will, via exposure, be relatively used to the details and have accepted that life was different and tougher at most times in the past, and that it can't be changed now. The information is second hand; those working in emergency and medical services who see disturbing events in person likewise don't get severely upset by every case; one develops a certain level of detachment, and to those who find this happens more readily may gravitate towards sub-fields where it is useful, whilst the more sensitive may choose subject areas where they are less likely to encounter distressing material on a daily basis.