First, let’s create an historian — say, a Doctor Charley Smith — so we’ll have someone to refer to by name as we consider that process.

Dr. Smith has decided to write a book about an event known as the Bay of Pigs.

Now Dr. Smith has been thinking about that occurrence as the subject for a book for some time. He’s also done a great deal of reading about it and has discussed it with colleagues. He’s not consciously aware of this, but he’s already reached several conclusions about what happened and why. Which, of course, is going to bias his research.

Dr. Smith also knows that he can’t write a history of the Bay of Pigs that would be like any other history of that event if he’s going to get it published, impress his colleagues, get media coverage, and so on. He knows that he’s got to find a new angle. Which will also bias his research.

And what about the kinds of research materials available to Dr. Smith? Well, they include other history books on the subject; newspaper and magazine articles; relevant articles in so-called learned journals; government documents; published reports; media releases; eyewitness accounts; and relevant correspondence.

The trouble is that they all have one thing in common — not one of them deals with what actually happened. Instead, they all deal with people’s perceptions of what actually happened.

So given all the foregoing, the compelling conclusion is that no history book contains an account of the actual what, when, where, why, how, and who of an event.

On the contrary, each one reflects the unavoidable biases of its author accompanied by the inherent biases of available research material. So the compelling corollary to the conclusion I just stated is that there are as many histories as there are minds. And not one of them is any more valid than any other.

Think about it.