Historical revisionism is often mistakenly equated with the idea of 'rewriting history,' but these concepts are distinct and understanding this distinction is crucial in the study of history. Historical revisionism refers to the critical re-examination of historical facts and narratives, often incorporating new evidence or perspectives that were previously overlooked or marginalised. This process is fundamental to the dynamic nature of historical scholarship, where our understanding of the past evolves as new information comes to light or as societal values change. In contrast, 'rewriting history' is often used pejoratively to imply the distortion or manipulation of historical facts, usually for political or ideological purposes. While revisionism is about enriching and refining our understanding of history, 'rewriting' suggests an attempt to alter the past to serve present needs. The distinction is important because it underscores the difference between a legitimate academic endeavour aimed at deepening historical knowledge and potentially dishonest practices that seek to distort history for other ends.

Monuments and public memorials play a significant role in shaping the historical narrative and public memory. They act as physical representations of history, often commemorating significant events, figures, or groups. However, the creation and placement of these monuments are deeply influenced by the values and power structures of the society that erects them. As such, they often reflect the narratives and perspectives of dominant groups, while the experiences and contributions of minorities and women may be underrepresented or entirely absent. For instance, many monuments historically have celebrated male military or political leaders, while overlooking the roles of women or the experiences of colonised peoples. In recent years, there has been a growing movement to re-evaluate and diversify the subjects of public memorials, aiming to provide a more inclusive and accurate representation of history. This includes erecting new monuments to previously overlooked figures and events, and in some cases, recontextualising or removing existing ones that are seen as representing outdated or offensive views.

The increased focus on global history in education has significantly impacted the representation of historical events and figures. Traditional history curricula often centred on national narratives or the history of Western societies, marginalising the experiences and contributions of other regions and peoples. Global history, by contrast, emphasises a more inclusive approach, recognising the interconnectedness of different regions and cultures throughout history. This shift has led to a more balanced representation of historical events and figures, acknowledging the roles played by diverse cultures in shaping the world. For example, students are now more likely to learn about the contributions of non-Western scientists, leaders, and civilisations in areas such as mathematics, astronomy, and governance. This broader perspective helps students develop a more nuanced understanding of history, recognising the complexity and diversity of human experiences. It also fosters a greater appreciation of the global context in which historical events occur, challenging ethnocentric views and promoting a more holistic view of the past.

True objectivity in representing a historical event is arguably unattainable due to the inherent subjectivity of human perspectives. Every historian, or indeed any individual interpreting history, brings their own cultural, social, and personal biases to their understanding of events. These biases are shaped by their upbringing, education, and the societal norms of their time. Even the choice of which events to study or emphasise is subjective, influenced by what a particular society or academic community values as 'significant'. Moreover, the available sources, which form the basis of our understanding of any historical event, are themselves products of their times and contexts, often reflecting the biases and limitations of their creators. While historians strive for objectivity by critically analysing sources and seeking multiple perspectives, complete objectivity remains an ideal rather than a practical reality. Thus, the representation of historical events is always a balance between striving for an unbiased account and acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of any historical interpretation.

Modern digital media sources have significantly altered our understanding of historical significance and representation. These sources, including online archives, social media, and digital libraries, provide a wealth of information that was previously inaccessible or unknown. This accessibility allows for a more democratic and diverse engagement with history, where multiple perspectives, especially from marginalised groups, can be shared and heard. However, the ease of information dissemination also poses challenges, such as the spread of misinformation and the potential for echo chambers, where only like-minded views are shared and reinforced. Digital media has democratised historical narratives, but it also requires a more critical and analytical approach from consumers to discern credible information from biased or false narratives. Thus, while digital media has expanded the scope of historical knowledge, it has also made the evaluation and interpretation of this knowledge more complex.