Historians basically won't admit that history has both subjective and objective aspects.
It's not about whether the official recording history has subjective bias or not.
But rather that past and present, most people's understanding of history remains on a subjective level.
In the past, people believed whatever was sung in operas.
Now, they believe whatever marketing accounts say.
In ancient court battles, if you wanted to topple a powerful minister, just a charge of corruption and bribery was far from enough; you'd need to list dozens or even hundreds of charges.
For example, this person was a troublemaker from a young age, bullied locals, abused men and women, got his cousin pregnant, wrote indecent poems in the temple when drunk, seized land, drove innocent people to death, embezzled disaster relief funds, framed colleagues, privately hoarded armor, had an affair with the noble consort...
