We know by now, however, that there is no such thing in any scientific, sociological or historical discipline. Someone has made some choices and decided which facts to select and how to present them. I prefer to be told, as clearly as possible, what lies behind those choices. The ostrich approach to issues like ethnicity is dangerous. Young German students who have never been exposed to open debate on the topic get all excited when they stumble across the writings of Kossinna and his ilk, innocent of their racist and nationalistic history.
American students are no more immune to the residual effects of unexamined attitudes.
During the Civil Rights era, talking about race and ethnicity became either inflammatory or simply not done in polite society. Thus, current conflicts about nationalism and citizenship, immigration and economic opportunity tiptoe around such issues or studiously ignore them, without in the least making them go away. Denial or ignorance in no way decreases the mountains of ideological baggage. We read the works of Herodotus of Halikarnassos , not Herodotos of Somewhere in Greece, assuming that he represents Greek mainstream thought. We study Greek vase painting, and talk about the inscriptions as products of literate, gentlemanly if somewhat bohemian Athenians struck, perhaps, by the beauty of Leagros at symposium or in the Palaistra.