1. Do you believe that writing history is subjective? Why? Explain.

I agree that writing history is subjective because there are several factors that can influence how
events are recorded and interpreted, such as the biases and perspectives of the historian, cultural and
societal influences, and the availability of sources. The interpretation of history is subjective as it uses
point of view and theories in which the historian’s biases and views influence that interpretation. This is
why researchers should always go back to the primary sources to ensure that written history is as
objective as possible, through the use of primary sources and multiple perspectives. Moreover, in the
present time, most historiographers agree that the study of history is necessarily subjective. Historians
bring their own biases and interpretations to their work, resulting in differing views of historical events.

2. Discuss the importance of historical criticism

The word critical criticism is also known as the historical-critical method. It is also a branch of criticism
that investigates the origin of text or source in order to understand the word behind the text. Its
importance is that through this historical criticism we can verify if the document is fake, corrupted, a
forge, or not the original one in order to make these mistakes right. In historical criticism, we can verify
if the source or documents are credible, authentic, reliable, valid, or accurate; and establish a
reconstruction of historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. It is important to reflect on
history and give it criticism because it allows us to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors, and as well
take accountability for the results of that history that are still around today.