History is written by the winners---sometimes. It's mostly written by authors and publishers. It is often slanted to express the ideas or values of the writer or the group he/she represents. There is a biased pressure to tell their historical narrative playing fast and loose with the facts or not considering all the evidence that happened which shaped that historical event. This slanted story is what we learned throughout our education.
For example the American Revolution. Always taught in school that most of the colonist supported the revolt. It was very "rah-rah" and "my country right not wrong." Not until deep into my graduate studies did I learn/discover that one-third of the colonist supported the British, another one-third supported the revolt and the final one-third made a profit selling goods and services to both sides (and didn't care who won as long as there was money to be made ---the true birth of the American capitalist system).
This presentation of the historical narrative is done by both liberal and conservative writers and historians so at least there is something in common. Seldom do you read or learn of a historical event that is just the facts and consequences. What is so difficult to merely present the evidence and allow the reader to interpret it on their own? But, the reader now introduces their bias and prejudices into the mix. So what is fact and what is myth in learning history? And who decides?
More discussion to continue about the Myth of History.