When we try to understand and know the past, people (including historians) depend on
primary and secondary documents and other
resources to understand events, individuals,
groups, ideas, and objects. For instance, it
would be difficult to evaluate the impact of
the elevator, or human rights, or the Civil War
without evidence from the past.
What difficulties do you think might arise
when trying understand the past? Is there
ever one, total truth about the past or is
everything an interpretation? What makes
one interpretation about the past more
credible than another?

1. Some event in the past may lack sources that tell what really happened without contradicting it.

2. There is total truth about most events that have happened in the past.

3. An interpretation based on facts and evidence becomes more credible than another.

Explanation:

It is important that we know what happened in the past to encourage behaviors that worked and not repeat the same mistakes that citizens have made in the past. In short, the success of the future depends on a full understanding of events that occurred in the past and were able to influence how we live today.

For this reason, it is important that major events are fully and fully documented. These documents will serve to show the citizens of the future what happened and what were its consequences, without addressing contradictions, but addressing facts and evidence. Without these documents, the study of the past becomes very difficult.

It is important to remember that these documents show facts that show the history as it was, as an absolute truth, leaving no scope for incorrect interpretations. An example of this can be seen today in Brazil. Brazil underwent a strong military dictatorship in its past and although there are many documents that prove all the violence and absurdities of that time, many people say that this moment may have been positive, depending on the way that each interprets it.

the democratic and republican parties

explanation: