Do the names we use for historical events influence the way we think about those events? explain your reasoning and give an example from your knowledge of history. you

Yes. The names we use to talk about historical events influence the way we think about those events. We can recall the debate and reflection that has arisen around the expression attributed to the novelist George Orwell: "history is written by the winners" and his explanation about how the point of view of the losers is misrepresented in the official narratives.

If we analyze this phrase carefully, we can deduce that there are other different and alternative versions of history depending on the role and point of view of who narrates what happened. It is likely that our perception of some stages of history will change if we know another version of the facts. Surely each version has its own language and ways to name and interpret what happened.

One example, in the United States: specifically in Arizona lives the Hopi People. There is a version of History in which they are considered to be descendants of "The Anasazi." The Hopi People do not recognize this name "Anasazi" since they say it was a derogatory name used by the Navajo People who were enemies and prefer to name the ancestral culture of which they feel part as "Hisatsimon".  

Another example that may be useful is to see how native communities of the American continent interpret that the day on which the European colonizers arrived was an invasion of their territories. Meanwhile, from the point of view of the colonizers, a new discovery was being made.

radioactive dating, also known as  radioisotope dating  is a process that in  estimating the approximate  age  of  rocks. these data can be analyzed from  the studies dealing with the  decay of the radioactive elements that are present in these rocks. in nature, there are a few types of materials or atoms which are quite unstable and they spontaneously decay or breakdown to form other kinds of atoms.