Indeed, during the Arab Spring, different political forces often reinterpreted or even deliberately distorted certain historical details or events in order to serve their own political purposes. The following are some common situations: 1. Differences in the narrative of the cause of the event: In order to maintain their own legitimacy, some regimes or political commentators may downplay the factors of long-term socio-economic contradictions and political oppression, and interpret the protest movement as incitement by external forces or accidental social disorder; while the opposition and supporters of reforms often emphasize the people's strong dissatisfaction with institutional injustice, unemployment and corruption for a long time, and regard this change as a historically inevitable democratic evolution. 2. Selective interpretation of historical background: In some narratives, the history of Arab countries is often consciously linked to past national independence, liberation struggles or democratic movements, thereby highlighting the inevitability of a certain "liberation" or "revival". On the one hand, the government may try to alienate these events into synonyms of "chaos" and "violence" to rationalize repression; on the other hand, the reformists attach importance to taking some successful popular movements in history as examples and encourage collective action. 3. Description of key events: Taking Egypt as an example, the rallies and demonstrations in Tahrir Square have been described very differently in different media and political narratives: official media may emphasize the factors of "disorder" and "external interference", while some independent media and international observers believe that the events here show the suppressed democratic voices and the rise of civil society for decades. Similarly, there are similar phenomena in the Tunisian self-immolation incident, Libya and Syria. The details, causes and impacts of historical events are constantly repackaged in political discourse to suit the political interests of all parties. 4. The relationship between historical memory and political legitimacy: Political forces often use selectively interpreted historical details to construct a narrative of continuity - whether it is to emphasize the stability and unity of national traditions or to highlight the inevitable trend of reform and opening up. This operation can provide "historical legitimacy" for certain political actions, making the current political choices seem to be continuing or breaking through the established historical trajectory. In general, the Arab Spring is not only a spontaneous mass movement, but also an important object of competition for various political narratives. The interpretation of historical details and events is often not a simple statement of facts, but more of a tool for political demands and legitimacy. Therefore, when studying the political and social changes of this period, it is very necessary to carefully compare different narrative versions and the political motives behind them.