HIStory can be different than HERstory..but you need both to know the truth

I feel that this question can be put like this, "Is there a point in hearing both sides of an argument before determining what is really going on?" I find it strange that we just listen to one account of history, but when two people get in an argument, we often say "Let me hear her side of story." What Sally tells you about Ann can be totally different than what Ann tells you about Sally. Only when you put these two accounts together, are you even capable of having the truth. I don't think that anyone is capable of total objectivity. We are Human, not robotrons, as a result, how we feel, perceive things, rank things by importance to us, the histories we account reflect that. Look at the issue of the Britain and the American Revolution. Do you think that it's written the same way in American textbooks as British textbooks? Just think about the perceptions of the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are not the same as what we may see them. It is important to look at both views. We cannot be content with half the story albeit history or present. If we do not seek out alternative stories, we will never know the full truth on how things came to be seen today. Then if we take into account, like J. Tickner states, the histories have been written by men of influence. What about the people who were not in a position to tell their stories, the marginalized populations of the world, do their stories not count? Without alternative foundational stories, part of the truth is missing. Thus, the value in analyzing world politics from different perspectives is the ability to see the world clearer.