"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon"

History is not a simple, objective record of everything that has occurred; rather, it is shaped, filtered, and sometimes even constructed by the minds and motives of those who document it. What we call "history" is often the result of numerous discussions, debates, and compromises among people who have varying perspectives and personal interests. Certain events are emphasized while others are forgotten or deliberately omitted. The official narrative that is passed down serves as a collective agreement—sometimes explicit, sometimes tacit—on which stories from the past will be told, and how they will be interpreted.

This dynamic has profound implications. The stories nations tell themselves in textbooks, the monuments they build, and the national holidays they observe, all reflect what a society has chosen to remember and, just as importantly, what it wishes to forget. Political leaders, historians, and even ordinary citizens all contribute to this process of shaping collective memory. When people challenge the accepted version of past events, they often meet resistance, since these versions can be deeply intertwined with identity and national pride.

The result is that history, as most people understand it, is never entirely neutral or completely comprehensive. Personal bias, power dynamics, and changing social values all play roles in the ongoing construction of historical narratives. As new evidence emerges or priorities shift, societies can reconsider and sometimes revise the past, but rarely is it possible to return to an absolute or objective account of what actually happened. The stories we cling to about bygone eras are not immutable truths, but carefully curated tales that say as much about the people deciding them as about the realities they purport to describe. Consequently, understanding history demands a critical eye—not only to what is recorded, but also to whose voices are included and whose are left out.