**TL;DR History can never be objective because history is nothing more than a set of events recalled from lived experiences** When the same event is explained from multiple perspectives, two sides can have versions that differ from one another completely and yet both can still be entirely true. Both sides will present a narrative that seeks to represents _their own view_ of how a set of events played out. - When two nations are at war with one another, both sides will paint the opposing country as the evildoers. Though both nations kill those belonging to the opposing side for their own personal gain, to them only _their_ reasons for doing so are justified, and their history is recorded as such. - In a hypothetical war between ”Nation A” and “Nation B”, the events of the conflict will be recorded as they unfold and be placed into their youth’s textbooks. Nation A’s textbooks may describe the event as a war fought well by their soldiers against an oppressive and threatening country. It may be recorded by Nation A as a war that ended victoriously, resulting in the successful acquisition of new land from a tyrannous nation. Textbooks in Nation B on the other hand might describe the conflict as an “attack on their land and innocent civilians” by a power hungry country. It’ll be recorded as an unfortunate day in history. Neither side would be falsifying the truth from their perspective, and yet the stories aren’t compatible with one another. When neither perspective is entirely false, telling the story in its entirety without some inherent bias is impossible. However, just because history is subjective doesn’t make it any less true. Peoples lived experiences don't have to be compatible with one another from them to be real. Multiperspectivity and actively choosing to take all biases into account is what gives us a complete story. Even if each account cannot be retold objectively.

Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. *This is an objective truth. We have the document, we can see the signature.* Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. *This isn’t objective. He didn’t run around smashing chains all by his bad self, but can be attributed as one of many factors that lead to the end of slavery.*

I think it can be, but will never be