History, broadly understood as “the study of past events, particularly in human affairsthe past considered as a whole” (OED), can be considered in two ways: (1) the Past, and (2) the Historiography of the Past. Considered here, “the Past” is what literally occurred in the past, an objective set of events that can never be changed. The methodology of historiography, however, is the historian’s process of detailed research, gathering as many details as possible, as extracted from historical records of the Past. This historical methodology encourages consensus-building, based on academic decision-making in a scholarly context, and acknowledges that recollections of the past are always tainted with subjectivity and bias. As Mark Twain once said, “The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice” (392), which means that history is never objective, because every historian, has their own unique code and point of view about the reality. A historian’s view is based on his or her own their experiences, knowledge, memories, and influences. However, the basic understanding is to know that, once history is made, it cannot be recreated. “History from Below” is a concept that evaluates the people and the regions that have made a mark on this earth. In this paper I will be proving that history is never objective because it is based on events that have already occurred which later become facts, and that throughout century colonization, was most conquered through invasion and discovery. The history “from below” focuses on the perspective of people who feel pain, are victims of violence, and who are depressed. According to Dussel, “the world of the foreign oppressor saw things in terms of a discovery cum conquest while within our subjective [central and south] American world it was a process of bewilderment, servitude and death. The same events, therefore, generated two quite different sets of feelings an