I have loved many people over the course of more decades than I care to admit, but as I look back on them, I'm fairly sure none of them were perfect. Most had fairly obvious shortcomings. If we love only the perfect, I'm afraid we'll be restricted to things like starlight (and even stars exhibit blemishes when viewed through a powerful enough telescope!).

I'm not sure I could study a people and their period without falling in love with them in some way - their art or architecture, their literature - something. If I'm not drawn to something about their humanity, I don't think I could spend much time learning about them. But like the people I have loved, none of the historic people I have studied are perfect. At the same time, it is important not to allow the loves of our life (living or dead!) to seduce us into thinking they are, indeed, perfect. We must love them while understanding their imperfections. To do otherwise is delusional.

So, go ahead and fall in love with every group of people who consume your interest. They aspired to soar and their human spirit is worth admiring. Don't attempt to apologize for their shortcomings, frailties and misdeeds. These, too, come with the package!

It is also important to remember not to pass judgement on past people using modern standards. People in the past often did horrible things by modern standards, but we shouldn't be quick to judge. The only people who open the door to judgment are those in the past who do horrible things knowing that their acts were wrong. Context is everything.

A word, however, for the truly reprehensible if not unlovable: there are those people or groups of people who are without obvious redemption. I'm thinking of Hitler and Nazis. It's true that Nazis had great uniforms and their generals could be brilliant strategists. And Hitler liked dogs, did he not? It is equally true that a lot of historians devote lifetimes to studying these topics, and presumably most do not conduct research out of some sort of affection, but rather their work is often to expose cruelty and horrible, despicable failures on a basic level of being human. I commend those historians who grind away on topics without a love for the people they study. As for me, I have always said to myself that I could never study Hitler because I would not want to spend that much time with him - or anyone like him.

If your passion for past people emerges from your admiration-turned-to-love for them and their humanity, I say go for it, as long as you keep them in perspective. For those who can stomach spending time with Charles Manson and his ilk, my hat's off to you, but you carry on without me by your side!

I want to add a word on the issue of passing judgment on the past - it appears that what I had to say may have touched a nerve. In addition, what I had to say may have been perceived to have a built-in hypocrisy, namely because I mention Hitler, Nazis, and Charles Manson in the context of "people who are without obvious redemption."

First, my suggestion that one should not judge people in the past was offered in the context of times and cultures far removed from our own. These ancient people had their own perception of right versus wrong, moral versus immoral, and ethical versus unethical. To introduce our own standards is a form of ethnocentrism, and it does not yield anything like good history.

So what of Hitler? What of some of the worst Caesars? There are people in the past who were, in fact, judged by their contemporaries. As historians, we need to listen to those judgments. Ancient judgments must be considered carefully to make certain it isn't a matter of political squabbling rather than a widely-accepted indictment. Source criticism is important, but we should listen to those judgments.

In the case of Hitler, etc., the world passed judgment in real time. In addition, I was born well within the twenty-year period in the wake of the war (my father spent three years in Europe fighting fascism). I grew up with the contemporary (not historical) judgment of that man and the atrocities he perpetrated. Younger people should listen to the judgment of contemporaries in this case too, and they should attempt to evaluate that judgment more objectively than contemporaries (including me!) could.

I often hear the assertion that President Lincoln was a racist. By today's standards, one could probably make a case for this. Was that the evaluation of contemporaries? Of course not! Lincoln was progressive on the subject of race issues and did more to address racism than most of his peers. To judge him by modern standards is absurd.

I hope that helps.