Note from 2024-8-2
I have started to see parallels between studying history and the role of "Receiver" from the novel The Giver.
The "pop culture" view of "history" and "historical truth" often lacks much of the nuance needed when discussing such topics. Truth is never cut-and-dry. Truth is claimed not just by the victor, but by any surviving party. All "facts" are up for interpretation from all that are aware of them.
In reality, "facts" are illusory. What we are left with is instead, evidence. This evidence is ascribed a meaning through interpretation and fit into a narrative and causal chain. Nigh infinite interpretations can be derived by different historians from the very same set of evidence. With history, objectivity itself is subjective. All historical research is like detective work. Research is like formulating a case using old, sometimes antique or even ancient drama to do so.
Historiography then attempts to interpret a topic's many interpretations over time. This act of reinterpretation and revision is how we arrive at new conclusions, especially when newly-discovered or considered evidence is used.
The world is always changing, as is the past. The past changes not because the actual events are retroactively altered, but because we find new evidence and reevaluate what we already know and hold to be true. This realization can sometimes be jarring to someone less acquainted with such concepts, and hard for those who value absolute truth and objectivity in their lives. At the end of the day, there are two truths: the events as they happened, and the events as we see them. At the end of the day, we can never know precisely what happened because our records and points of view are limited, so what exactly is truth after all?