system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: History can never truly be "objective". It is flawed storytelling and should be focused strictly on the facts of what happened.

History can be compromised of recorded facts, but ultimately, history is storytelling. It is the construction of a point of view and a narrative rather than an objective retelling of the facts. Many parts of history are missing or other narratives are purposefully rewritten or glossed over to conform the majority narrative. Sometimes this can be a good thing (such as fighting Lost Cause mythology) or a bad thing (the perspectives of the Native Americans and the genocide committed against them).  So, in reality, instead of history being more like a science, it is more like literature. Sometimes, history can be completely fabricated and faked. To the public, the story that is created from the historical facts strung together is more important than the facts themselves.

I hold this view because this method of flawed storytelling has tremendous influence on the ways people view the world and interact with other people. This is expressed through politics and culture wars. The way history is told can firmly cement people's views on everything from politics, society, religion, so on and so forth. This has led to some of the worst crimes, wars, genocides, and other atrocities.

When we focus on the why, rather than the what, this method of history comes into play, leading these potentially horrible things to happen. Unless reasons are explicitly given, focusing on the "why" of history is an exercise in futility since there are many different views of the "why". They become entrenched if taught at a young age or if it confirms a previously held bias.

Edit: This topic is about how history is taught. Particularly in public schools but often times at the university level depending on where it is and who is teaching. My apologies if I wasn't clear on that.
gpt
>instead of being more like a science, history is more like literature... this method of flawed storytelling has tremendous influence 

this kind of sounds like you think literature is “flawed” and science is “good.” is something bad simply because it’s not a science? 

one of the most valuable things about the humanities — like history and literature — is that these disciplines teach us to compare and critique narratives, and understand how they are shaped by biases, rather than simply dividing everything into a simplistic binary of “true” and “false”