Historians get their information from two different kinds of sources: primary and secondary. <span>Primary sources </span><span>are first hand sources; </span>secondary sources<span> are second-hand sources. For example, suppose there had been a car accident. The description of the accident which a witness gives to the police is a primary source because it comes from someone actually there at the time. The story in the newspaper the next day is a secondary source because the reporter who wrote the story did not actually witness it. The reporter is presenting a way of understanding the accident or an </span>interpretation<span>..</span>
There are many reasons why different historians might develop different interpretations of the same evidence. One of the most common ones is due to bias. Some historians might have a biased view of history due to their own preconceptions and prejudices. This will influence their view of the evidence. Moreover, a historian can be influenced by his own time period, or his cultural background.
I would say it means that a nation is only as strong as its people. hinting that if the people do not trust in its government or the officials the nation will not be strong therefore it is ruined.
