Claim: A good historian strives to be as unemotional as possible, this is the only way to write accurate history
Opinion: I strongly disagree with this claim as history must be attached to emotion to be considered valuable. When it comes to history, no matter what the area of interest is, there will always be one-sided opinions and personal context attached to it as history is different depending on who is recounting it. If we did not have an emotional response to history then we would not know the impact the event the occurred had on the people who experienced it. To have the reliable accurate history means to view all perspectives to an event, not to view absolutely no emotional perspectives of the people who experienced it first hand at all. History tells the story of people, and all people have emotions. Thus, if you try and tell history with no emotional aspect it would not sufficiently tell the full story.
Although it is true that personal opinions and biases attached to emotions may trigger unrealistic or exaggerated memories of the past resulting in unreliable and inaccurate historical evidence. By collecting these ideas from numerous individuals the image that is painted of the event is much more vivid.
When we look back in history and other historical archives all works have a sense of one-sidedness. The information is inevitably affected by the context of the person writing it. This could lead to an emphasis on certain points and omission to others. This is due to the emotional relevance on the issue that they learnt from their own context and background. Therefore, emotional not only does not hinder the reliability and accurate of history, instead, it pushes it forward and allows for better and more well-rounded opinions to be formed.