The changing version of history?

We are all captivated when we hear a good historical story, whether it's about how people lived in the past or how empires were established, even though not everyone is willing to study history as a discipline.

From cave drawings to heroic deeds that are remembered hundreds of years after they occurred, humans have discovered methods to leave a mark on the world. Others wrote about history, while other people made it.

History has a facetious tendency of repeating itself, and not necessarily for the better. Sometimes it occurred because people lacked sufficient knowledge of earlier errors. Other times, they did, but they took nothing away from those experiences.

Since then, we have been told, history has been based on actual people, locations, dates, and events. And we make use of them to examine how they affect the present and future. By learning from them, we may better understand why the present is the way it is, prepare for the future, and become better members of society.

The previous events are made up of our ancestors' hopes for the future generation to live in better conditions, to achieve freedom, and to find their own identities. These are the noble ideals for which they sacrificed much for us.

Even if it is arbitrary, the process of considering occurrences as a part of history is arduous. It takes time to offer arguments and counterarguments, as well as supporting data and justifications for why a topic ought to be brought to the public's attention. Additionally, depending on who makes up the group charged with writing the history, a portion of the process can occasionally be political. Gender is an illustration of this, as in historical periods when and places where women were underrepresented.

Women tend to stay out of the spotlight since they are only allowed to act as supports or assistants while men take the lead. Second, in terms of geographic representation, some regions of the country have historical people who are not given much attention in our history books, ending up only as local narratives.

In the past, history has been transmitted verbally before it was ever formally recorded. Therefore, a proper inquiry would and may invalidate something that has been firmly believed for a long time. However, this does not give anyone the right to dismiss history as a simple byproduct of hearsay with no basis for credibility. Discrediting the work of historians who have spent so much time and effort unearthing the truth about historical events for so long is unjust and simply irresponsible. Without first validating it and then revalidating it, the commission or government body cannot just accept any historical item or allegation.

We are constantly exposed to a variety of dubious sources of information. We also need to comprehend those who continue to believe that history is the result of rumors. It is possible to find material that looks logical but contradicts historical accounts without being aware of it. It is exceedingly risky to believe what we see and hear straight away, especially if it comes from questionable sources, as this information or belief could spread to others and passed down generationally. Governmental and non-governmental entities must therefore keep a close eye on attempts to rewrite our history.

We can alter the course we take for the future, but not the past. The past and respecting its lessons are what enable us to look ahead. We safeguard the historical accuracy. We cannot permit any attempt to diminish the past by anyone or any sector that reduces it to hearsay.