This question is a bit different in that I am asking about historiography and practices. I recently had a question removed for asking a question that moralized past events and actors. I was surprised a little bit because I had never considered this. Thinking back to high school and middle school history classes were constantly moralizing events especially in American history and giving and Us Vs Them Good Vs Bad narrative and I understand why.
So my question for professional historians is when if ever is it ok for you to moralize? Academically I can certainly see the purpose and understand the practice. Academic endeavors should be as unbiased as possible. However, surely outside of academic endeavors we can and should attribute value judgments on certain past events or else how can we learn from history?
Could someone perhaps shed a little light on the ideas and practices of professionals and explain it to me a little better?
Well, I'll give this my shot.
I don't think it's the case that historians don't or shouldn't make any judgements. Read anything about Nazism and while the language used is less specifically opinionated and personal, the sense of condemnation is clear. Furthermore, you look at the works of David Starkey, John Guy and Jenny Wormald and you'll clearly see them render their own judgments and give emotional impressions through tone. The key thing is to do so appropriately and with basis, rather than where it is not appropriate or when your tone or claims are unjustified.
This is also true of university work as a student learning in academics. If you submit an essay with opinions and moral tones you won't necessarily lose marks. The key thing is whether your arguments and tone are appropriate, relevant and justified by evidence. Don't prioritise personal opinion too much or make it too emotional. Derive your opinion from the factual material, and prioritise the general nature of your argument and it's factual implications.
Imagine two comments from an academic:
"George Washington was a terrible person"
or
"George Washington contributed to historical colonialism and slavery in the formation of America and to violence that was done on behalf of settler dominance."
One is more professional, and yet both could indicate the same opinion. The key thing is the second is more about how so, rather than a straight moral judgement; which shouldn't be your primary focus. Historians can make moral judgements but the work is more about describing and analysing, so the moral implications should be less dominant over the content and you want to describe it in a more specific, informative way rather than a flat moral claim.
If your answer was deleted it is conceivable the mods saw your approach to history as problematic. It's important to have academic integrity, an awareness of alternate perspectives and arguments, and also not have an opinion justifying terrible things. If you fail on one of those, that might cause issues. This recent post by moderator Georgy_K_Zhukov is helpful if you want to know how to write a good answer here:
Also familiarise yourself with the rules and standards of this sub. Check out what kind of things get good responses. See how the criteria are cited when things get deleted and how that shows the rules in action.