Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?
As a historian, it is not your job to have empathy for any side. What you are called to is an objective consideration of the facts. While part of that certainly involves thoroughly understanding all points of view regarding historical issues, including points of view with which you might vehemently disagree, it does NOT mean that you have to commit yourself to viewing all points of view as being equal.
Sure, I can have empathy with those who toiled under what some would consider to be "colonial oppression." Being a conquered people isn't necessarily easy. I also think, however, that any historian worth his or her salt would take issue with the value judgment injected into the question by the term, "colonial oppression", as in using that phrasing your teacher has already committed himself to not being objective.
Can I see why people in these societies have embraced communist ideology? Absolutely. People who are poor and not very well educated have a tendency to embrace fine sounding ideologies in all opposition to the facts. From a theoretical standpoint, Maslow's hierarchy of needs points out that people will always work to serve lower physiological and security needs before they will even think of higher needs. When people are hungry and clad in rags, they will listen to people who offer them food, clothes, and shelter. It doesn't matter that the ideology they offer has a poor track record in providing those things, and it matters even less that societies built upon the ideology in the past have done precious zilch to fulfill the higher needs of the majority of people. So, yes, I can certainly see why native populations would embrace communism despite the fact that they are demonstratively wrongheaded in doing so. Their error is compounded by the fact that, in theory, Communism requires an industrialized society (which they are not) and agricultural-based Communist approaches have proven to be even more destructive than ones that focused on industrialization (think Pol Pot).
It gets tiresome when professors such as yours insist upon empathy and understanding for certain positions to the point where the facts are to be ignored, however. I won't repeat the facts here, as everyone on this thread is well aware of them. History is about being as objective as possible within our cultural framework. The cultural framework part is often overlooked. The problem with liberal scholars is that they try to take their objectivity beyond our cultural framework and look past that; in doing so, instead of transcending "frameworks" they simply create a new one. They then proceed to ignore the fact that all they've done was created a new framework and try to impose that upon all of history. The end result is a historical view based upon flawed assumptions that ignores facts in favor of a system based on fanciful wishes and whimsy.
Good historians realize that they are working within the framework of the current time, place, and culture and realize that they are bound by the limits of those things. In knowing your assumptions and knowing that you are making assumptions, it is easier to look past those assumptions at times while keeping the facts clearly in view. I believe that this is what sets historians like your teacher apart from great modern historians like VDH.
But, I'd also remind you, you're not in school to make stands. You're in that class to get a good grade so that you might get a good degree and move on with your life. Were I in your shoes I'd bite my tongue and roll with the punches.
Great post. And BFL to a thread with a good many other fine posts.