I'm just saying it takes a while to get far enough from an event for historians to be able to look at it in retrospect, consider all its context and consequences, and come to a reasonable consensus about which parts were important and what to write about them.

For example I saw this video earlier about the levee failures in New Orleans during Katrina, which was 21 years ago. It made the good point that the repercussions of the event (in terms of engineering and otherwise) are still unfolding today: the historical record of what happened then is incomplete without the context that's happening now.

(The youtuber was also hawking his new book on the history of engineering failures, but never mind that part.)

Or for a more prosaic example, that's why my history textbooks in school in the '90s stopped around 1970 or so. They weren't 20 years old; they just didn't know what to say about the '80s yet. (And if they had been 20 years old, they probably would have barely talked about anything after WWII.)