Is History True?

After reading the article "Is History True?," I find myself concurring more so with the point-of-view of William H. McNeill than that of Oscar Handlin. NcHeill believes historical truth is general and evolutionary and is distinguished by various groups at different times, and in different places in a subjective manner that has nothing to do with a scientifically absolute methodology. I agree with this because people may interpret history differently based on when they're analyzing it, where they are in the world, or just because of they way they think. For example, if looking back on an war, the modern form of one side may say that it was caused by the doings of the opposing nation, and vice versa. Since we weren't actually there, we could never for sure; we can only guess or form a theory. Even written evidence is not completely reliable because the person who had written it could be biased and wrote it to his liking. He may have left out parts he didn't think were substantial, exaggerated some areas, and other things along those lines.
Also, our view of history does change over time, or evolve. For example, we may find the usage of the guillotine in the past to be a barbaric practice, but back then it was considered a normal punishment, although highly cruel. As time progresses though, we do discover more about past events but many of theses discoveries cannot be deemed as entirely true.
In addition, Our technology for recording events, soon to be history, improves over time. As this improvement occurs, the factual accuracy increases as well. For example, with the invention of video cameras and video-recording cellular phones, people can record events visually if they happen to be in the right (or maybe wrong, depending on the event) at the right time.