Should countries leave pieces of their history out, especially that which is negative, when documenting these stories? Explain.

I dont think countries should leave out pieces of their history especially the negative parts of it ,when documenting the stories of their history.I think this because the truth should be told completly when it comes to documenting history.History to me is what happened in the countries past that made an impact i guess in some sort of way, I dont exactly know the dictionay definition of  what history means but thats what it means to me.Where im trying to get at is if history is what happened in a countries past that made some sort of impact on that country then it should contain everything that happened in the event good or bad.A country shouldnt make themselves sound like angels to its people who are reading what happened in that event just because it makes themselves sound better then what they really are.I think the people of the country should know every aspect of what happened because it is the truth.The goverment of the country or whoever wrote that document of what happened that historic day should tell the truth of every major part that happened ,and not cut out the pieces that dont fit into their pretty little nice story that makes them sound like saints.What im basically trying to say is I think its wrong to cut the negative parts out of history to make that country sound good to its people.The people deserve to know the good and bad about its country not what the country wants its people to just know.