I've been reading about how the same historical event gets taught completely differently depending on the country—take the Korean War, for example, where textbooks in Seoul and Pyongyang barely overlap in their narratives. That made me wonder: if even professional historians can't agree on what 'actually happened,' should we stop treating history as a set of objective facts and instead view it as a collection of interpretations shaped by national identity, politics, and available evidence? I mean, some events are so recent that eyewitnesses are still alive, yet we already see conflicting accounts, so how can we claim certainty about events from centuries ago?