Michael, this is where I must disagree with that thesis. You are subjectifying history. By this same logic, all science can be “changed” since the results of the experiments we do are merely recollections of what we observed. No one doubts that different people have different perspectives, or that eyewitnesses under stress can have their memory tempered by that. But this isn’t history. History is an objective set of events, lives of individuals, artifacts created that do not change because of faulty recollection.

The tools we use for history are different from science. Science requires repeatable experiments — or should. History is not a repeatable experiment. Instead, the tools we use are evidence. Archeology intersects where there are artifacts. Written accounts (written history) are used when primary sources are needed, that precede any living memory. These are some of the tools historians use.