Whose job is it to tell history? When we ask that question, what we’re trying to do is pin down an exact party that could be responsible for giving us a credible version of what happened. This someone needs to be neutral, but not without a narrative; truthful, but doesn’t make anyone feel too uncomfortable.

The contradictions in this answer calls for a change of attitude we have towards history. We attempt to find the best storyteller, yet history is nothing like a story. While a story has a distinct tone that helps readers identify its protagonist and villain, we should be alert when we spot similar techniques used in history textbooks. It’s harmful when we sort figures into a good/bad dichotomy and portray events to serve our own agendas – especially if we consider that the purpose of history is to educate people about what actually happened. By placing storylines over reality, we reduce the complexity of the human experience, washing it down to our own notions and beliefs.

Another fact that needs to be realized is that discomfort is the price for reality. Unpleasant parts of history should be discussed and brought into the light, instead of glanced over. Allowing multifaceted discussions allows us to see different perspectives and encourages us to view history as a three-dimensional subject. That’s what we should recognize in this question: we are all entitled to tell history.