I saw this debate first hand in my history class. The topic of the discussion was Cuba and the rise of Castro as a communist dictator. As the child of a Cuban exile, I have heard anecdotes from people who lived and suffered under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. My family has seen the thousands of people who were killed under his command and the conditions of the Cuban people because of his policies. Undoubtedly, because of my personal upbringings, I am biased against Castro and communism in general. This extremely negative experience with communism has swayed my opinion about the political ideology to a great extent. However, in class, my history teacher argued that Fidel Castro had a great, positive impact on Cuba and the Cuban people. My teacher claimed that Castro reduced the unemployment rate and generally improved the average living conditions of the Cuban people.Just like historians, both my teacher and I were analyzing the same facts about the same country, yet were drawing drastically different conclusions. We were weighing evidence based on our own personal cultures and beliefs and drawing conclusions about the general nature of the regime. This personal example gives insight to the debates that historians go through in order to come to conclusions about events or topics in history. Historians attempt to decipher data in an objective way, yet the weighing of evidence is subjective and easily influenced by the culture of the historian. In this way, historians rarely come to the same conclusions based on the same facts simply because each individual historian is weighing evidence based on their own unique personal experiences. These experiences and aspects of their culture give each historian a predisposed idea about topics in history that causes them to evaluate events in history in different ways.