pol pot is an example, becuase it shows that people are, generally, not capable of having consensus on subjective things that happened in history and historic figures.

you say a lie is a lie, but what you hold to be a lie, can be held to be a truth by someone else. You think your truth and sense of 'right' is the only one, but it's not, it's yours.

What i think is right and wrong, based on my moral compass, can differ from someone else, doesn't matter how convinced i am.

and when this is put into a school curiculum, it gets messy.

if history was a hard science like maths, a Russian and an american wouldnt have to debate who 'won' the war, a North Korean would agree with a south korean about who started the Korean war.

but it's not, hence history is not a hard science. History studies human events, interpretations, and evidence that can’t be replicated or tested in a lab.

Historians can examine the same evidence and reach different conclusions, depending on their perspective or methodology.

I love history btw, I'm just saying it's not a hard science and, at the end of the day, learning it in school, means you get the government approved version of whatever aspect they are teaching.