My homework, please help me to correct it in grammar and its content.Thank you

Historical subjectivity
History is one of the most important subjects in our study and very important in human civilisation. We learn history from historical records and books. In our mind, history is what our ancestors did in some moments.
As we know, history is the fact that most historians come to a conclusion by observing and studying from a lot of real historical clues. If historians add some their personal views in it, how can we know that? For example, Shih Chi, one of Chinese most important historical records, detailed written by Si Maqian, we can learn a lot of historical records from it, even we can know if soldiers killed enemies through stabbing or chopping, and the author uses a mount of positive description, so it is subjective. It is history and it is subjective.
When historians find some historical clues, after their observation and study, can we say it is not history or it is not true if historians can not come to any definite conclusions? History is done by people and recorded by people, so it is not really objective. People use their language and words to record historical facts, so their personal mind is inevitable in it.
If historians disagree that Boston Tea Party and Lexington Shot real existed, but we know they are truth, so can we say they are not history? And if all historians agree and describe that some Americans’ guns discharged accidentally and Boston commercial ship with tea was broken accidentally, what would George Washington say is about it? Is historians’ agreement and disagreement objective? Or is so-called history objective? History is described subjective, we can people create history, so history is subjective.