History, contrary to what many believe, rarely tells all the truth about the past. If we were to listen or study only one version of a certain event that occurred on previous years, we are only seeing the light side of the moon. In order to know how the moon really is, we ought to see it through every angle; we have to study every single side, then draw comparisons between one and the others, and finally draw conclusions and put the pieces together to form a whole, and therefore attain the knowledge of how the moon truly is. In the same way, in order to understand the past and know its veracity, we have to study the story told by all the faction included in it, and even recollect knowledge from parties who were not involved, and whom lacked a preference for the sides present in the events. After going through that procedure, we would get a vast and rich idea of what actually occurred. The veracity of history is false until proven the contrary; we need to prove facts, characters, and events by method of comparison in order to accomplish the truth.
Similar to the quality of a certain restaurant unknown to us, in order to prove the sincerity of the history we are taught, we need to acquire various reviews from erudite of the matter before we can draw conclusion based on opinion and personal taste and likes. This aspires to explain that we need to hear and learn history from numerous experts in the subject matter, with different perspectives and opinions, and doubt the authenticity of those who seek to impress through false or unsupported claims and lack proper knowledge. Gather information from diverse sources that possess pathos in the story told, and do not fully believe one sole explanation and reject the rest, because that is where the problem of veracity kicks in.
I have experienced the differences between the same story, guilt be given to the fact that I have lived in two different geographical and political areas. Two nations share the same story, each with its differences and stretches benefiting those who relate it. When I studied the same story told by both participating units, I started to find anomalies in the way it was told. Numbers and other facts started to show differences and contrary argument and statements got me into the middle of the conflict, with the uncertainty of whom I should listen and trust. While studying The Battle at the Alamo and The Battle of San Jacinto I discovered that both anecdotes included false statements, opposing facts and arguments, and each possessed certain facts that were not even mentioned in the opposing band.
History is not an exact science such as math is. History does not posses the ability to be told throughout the world and be the same, history will differ from country to country, from state to state, from person to person. I claim that the full veracity of previous events, and the causes leading to them will never be revealed with precise exactitude, thanks to those who created stretches and lied while writing history- be it by government or agency pressures, or by self decision in a stride to disguise the preferred side with the “good side” tunic, and make of the opponents, the oppressors and the malevolent. Just as in a little kids fight, we need to hear the story from every child involved, be it witness, victim or suspect.