>It is difficult to understand the world ‘in real time’ but looking back into history more things make sense.
Gotta be careful with this though, as when it comes to reading history, it really depends on what sources you are reading. The old saying "history is written by the winners" which leads to the opposing side's views being suppressed if not outright omitted. So hopefully, when it comes to "real time" views or historical views, the sources are from more than one viewpoint and are more than one.
This is largely why the academic study of history has become historiography, the study of how history is written, and by whom, and understood in which contexts. Academic history books, from university presses, are usually pretty different than the pop-history books or books aimed at general audiences for a similar topic. They are much more skeptical and questioning of narrative and are usually very willing to bring up counter-arguments or competing claims.
A really good example, one of my favorite academic history books, is When Champagne Became French by Kolleen Guy [1]. It's really more a history of how the story of champagne was integrated into the ongoing narrative of French national history and identity, and how this integration obscured the sometimes violent disagreements over the identity of champagne and who ultimately "owned" it.
And, historical accounts can be revised both to correct issues and to spread false narratives[1]. So, when and not just by whom a history was written, and the context the writer was operating in is important too e.g., sources of funding.
[1] "[NELA in the United States] recruited academics to rewrite textbooks with pro-market, anti-government messages and pressured schools and libraries to adopt these rewritten textbooks. They funded academics to create new programs in high schools, colleges, and universities..."
random linkable source that quotes the book:
"The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market" by Naomi Oreskes (professor of the history of science at Harvard University)
Gotta be careful with this though, as when it comes to reading history, it really depends on what sources you are reading. The old saying "history is written by the winners" which leads to the opposing side's views being suppressed if not outright omitted. So hopefully, when it comes to "real time" views or historical views, the sources are from more than one viewpoint and are more than one.