When referred to the past, people and historians usually refer to it as history, rather than histories. However, I must say, I do not agree with them. In my opinion, It is impossible to refer to the past as just one single history, mainly because of these 2 different reasons. There is more than one thing happening at the same time and the fact that one single event has different perspectives.
First, as I mentioned before there is practically an infinite amount of events or actions at every moment in our past, so how can we refer to the past as one single history? While there is something going on in Europe, there is something else going on in Africa, America, Asia, etc. Let us take the dates of 1910 to 1920 for example. In that time, in the main part of Europe, World War 1 was being fought (from 1912 to 1918), while, in 1917, the Russian Revolution was also going on. Now changing location to the American continent, more specifically Mexico, from 1910 to 1920 the Mexican revolution took place against Porfirio Diaz to remove him as president. As we can see with this simple example, there are different events going on at the same time, therefore, it cannot be mentioned as a singular history.
In addition, societies must refer to the past as histories instead of history because there are multiple viewpoints of the same event, which are equally important and valid perspectives. However, due to how society works, the perspective we find out about is the one written by the civilization that turns out victorious or by whoever was the ruler at that time. Let me tell you one clear example which has both sides. When the Spanish army invaded Mexico and attacked the Aztecs civilization (Tenochtitlan) they captured the leader known as tlatoani (Moctezuma) to which the people had great respect. It is said by Spanish that when they forced Moctezuma to talk to his people from his palace and tell them to retreat; his people were shocked by his weakness and attacked him with stones which hit him in the head and caused his death. Personally, since I have studied the story of Mexico, this sounds really unlikely to happen; the respect that the Aztecs had for their leader would prevent them from doing such thing. The version written by the indigenous (Aztecs) says that when Moctezuma was asked to go out to calm his people, he neglected and told them to fight; therefore, he was stabbed by a Spaniard and died in his palace. This is another clear example of why we should refer to the past as histories and not history.
Although referring to the past as history does not really harm anything or cause any problems, it does not make much sense when you really sit down and think about it. Why do we refer to the past as history when there are multiple events happening in different parts of the world at the same time, and each of these events has multiple perspectives? For these reasons, I think people should refer to the past as histories instead of history.