@Vector has raised two questions that I think are very good. I think however that the ... presentation ... of those questions has been distracting.
I was one of the downvoters for the "colonial masters" questions, and I confess that after I hit the downvote and close the question stayed in my mind. I realized that in fact the question wasn't subjective; that I have read references to scholarly articles that made precisely this claim. I had a knee jerk reaction to phrases like "colonial masters" that are not infrequently used irresponsibly.
I'm not going to agree with @Vector's tone or presentation, nor defend use of flags, etc. I am most explictly not going to argue against @Steven Drennon's response, which I think is correct and useful.
I do think that there is an issue we should examine. History is a subtle subject, full of complexity, contradiction and unreliable reporters. Historians frequently disagree with one another; there are many many historical subjects for which there is no single best answer. (and the answers change; when I was growing up, Whig History was popular. When I was in college, Marxist development distory was the One True Faith. Today we have different trends).
SE has a different aesthetic/culture/preference. SE arises from more technical environments where there is more likely to be a single best answer.
Each SE site can and does differentiate from the core principles. However I think that if we are to be successful at departing from the core principles, we need to clearly document how, why and what the limits are.
- Subjective vs Objective. I do not think there is a simple answer to this question. History is going to be more subjective than (for example) security.stackexchange.com. We need to develop and continuously refine our own definition of good subjective and counterproductive subjective. I suspect that H:SE's interpretation of good subjective includes answers based on phrases like "success of the resulting state is a subjective term, but if we allow GDP to stand in as a measure for success, then...." If you'll permit me to abuse my own example, then I'll quickly point out that such answers lead inevitably to disagreement, and Lists.
- Lists. (I'll move this to that question if it is deemed more productive). History is an ongoing discussion of multiple correct answers. I do not have an answer as to how we can reconcile the practice of history with SE preference for single best answers. I believe it is worth examining the problem, developing and continuously refining an answer.
- Respect. Respectful language, respectful comments, respectful questions. We need to be very careful to be civil and respectful to one another, and to those affected by the questions. I now admit that I was unjust to "knee jerk" in response to "colonial masters", but I'd just read another question that bordered on racial profiling. NOTE WITH EMPHASIS I recognize that many participants on H:SE are either (a) not native English speakers, and therefore not aware of the subtle implications of some phrases - "poofy pants" comes to mind as an example of a phrase that wasn't intended to offend or amuse, but which has a different meaning in different cultures. We have to live with that reality (b) some of the participants are new to history and aren't aware of some of the groundwork. I made those same erroneous assumptions when I was just starting to study history. We have to be respectful when we point out that the world is more complicated. (c) legitimate differences of opinion. @Samuel Russell & I come from very different assumption sets; it would be very difficult for us to hold a conversation on many historical topics because we don't agree on the fundamentals. (Once he used the term "valorization", I realized that we simply wouldn't bridge the gap.) I don't think he's wrong, I just think he applies a different set of assumptions and methods to analyze history. I prefer my assumptions and methodologies. Fortunately we've been very respectful of one another, and I'd be happy to buy him a beer and discuss any non-economic issue. I'll upvote his answers in many cases because they are well researched, well thought through, and well written. Sometimes I'll upvote his, and then add my own answer because although I respect his opinion, I simply come from a different place. (Aside: that makes it very difficult for H:SE to identify "one best answer").
I'm not going to pretend that I have any of the answers, but I do think that we should ponder @Vector's question. Personally, I find the tone to be a bit more provocative than I find useful, but if I read past that, I think there is an important question.
