With the creation of both the 1619 Project, and the 1776 Commission, our view of history has started to take on a partisan view, with revisionist goals fitting the political position. How can we take a true view of history while still maintaining objectivity as new evidence of discoveries come to light? Should partisanship and presentism be allowed to alter our view of history?
In simplest terms, few historians would agree that there can even be such thing as "Nonpartisan Historical Objectivity", and in any case, objectivity isn't really the aim of doing history. History isn't the bare recitation of facts - although even that is hardly objective since you have to decide which to include and which not - but rather is about analysis and contextualization. The very idea that we can be unbiased about history is itself a bias, even, which sets up an amusing paradox to contemplate. Lots can be said on the subject, to be sure, but I would point to this piece from myself, as well as this one from /u/mikedash, which both look at the underpinnings of doing history, and what 'bias' or 'objectivity' mean in that context.