History is not just a narration of events but a condensation of the human struggle with time, authority, and truth. Winston Churchill famously said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." A statement that at first seems sarcastic, but at its core, it reveals one of the most dangerous truths in shaping human consciousness: that history is not always what actually happened, but what has been written about what happened or what has been explicitly or implicitly agreed upon to be circulated as "the truth".
It is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte that he said, "History is a set of lies agreed upon." Between these two statements, a precise equation is formed: history is not an absolute lie, but neither is it a pure truth. Rather, it is a cognitive construct formed through narratives and reshaped through established power, influence, and knowledge.
History is not a neutral record of events but a product of conflicting narratives written by the victor, reshaped by the strongest, and in which the voice of the weak is marginalized. Hence, those who possess the tools of narration, authority, media, and knowledge, then possess the power to shape the memory of nations and even redefine good and evil, heroism, betrayal, victim, and perpetrator...
This truth is not limited to major wars or deep political transformations but extends to the daily lives of states and peoples. How many revolutions have been labeled as chaos because they threatened the interests of the powerful or perhaps the corrupt? How much suppression has been called "preserving order" because it came from a party that owns the platform? And how many tragedies have been falsified or erased because they do not serve the official narrative?
Writing history is not an innocent act but is part of the exercise of power; when history is written, what is remembered and what is forgotten is selected, who is glorified and who is condemned, which context is highlighted, and which is obscured. Herein lies the danger when truth turns into a perspective and facts into a material subject to interpretation as needed.
Thus, the fundamental difference between "the historian" and "the promoter" emerges. The former leaves the door open for revision, acknowledges the relativity of knowledge, and maintains a critical distance from his subject. The latter locks all doors with propaganda, turns the narrative into dogma, and the event into a mobilization tool, with the truth turning into a ready-to-use product for naive minds....
But does this mean that history is a grand lie? Not exactly, it means that historical truth is a complex chemical equation that requires critical reading and awareness that every narrative inherently carries a bias, whether apparent or hidden. Even the historian, striving for impartiality, remains a product of his environment, influenced by his culture, ideas, impacted by his time and interests...
In our modern digital age, writing history is no longer the exclusive domain of politicians or official historians. Technology has entered as a new factor in this equation, with media platforms, social media, artificial intelligence, and even ordinary individuals becoming partners in creating the narrative. However, this broad participation has not solved the issue but perhaps complicated it more, as truth itself has become a battleground contested by fake news, propaganda, and algorithms that show you what you want to see, not what you need to know.
The battle of awareness formed in this context is the only battle that does not end with the end of wars. If Churchill wrote his history, subsequent generations and independent researchers dissected his practices in the colonies, including major tragedies like the Bengal Famine, proving that the pen of authority might write the beginning, but the awareness of the peoples writes the end...
Here arises an unavoidable question in the midst of this struggle over truth,
Will artificial intelligence be a tool to free history from human bias?
Or will it turn into a "digital Churchill," writing history for those who own the code?
The answer is certainly not simple, as artificial intelligence possesses a tremendous capacity to gather and analyze an unprecedented amount of data, compare narratives, uncover contradictions, and restore consideration to marginalized voices. Yet, it also feeds on data produced by humans and may reproduce their biases, conferring upon them a scientific veneer suggesting neutrality.
But if artificial intelligence is designed to reveal its sources, display multiple narratives, and acknowledge degrees of uncertainty, then it approaches the role of "the historian." If, however, it is used as a tool to rewrite the narrative according to specific interests, we face a more advanced and dangerous version of "the promoter," but dressed in an appearance that misleads you into trusting its academic and supposed neutrality....
Perhaps we cannot prevent the powerful and influential from attempting to write history in their favor, but we can refuse to read it blindly, keep the questions burning and alive, and realize that truth cannot be reduced to a single narrative.
History, at its core, is not just what happened, but how we understand what happened. Between the writer, the reader, and the re-reader, the battle of awareness continues; a battle not decided by victory but managed by constant vigilance and methodical skepticism that guards the truth from simplification and bias.
