Here's an interesting point, not just about economics, made in
this book review by M. Rothbard, that supposedly "unbiased" history comes off as biased towards what was done:
"The pitfall that the author falls into is this: if a history of economic events is
simply chronicled, as is done here, it is inevitable that an inner bias is given
in favor of the event, whatever that event may be — and this is the reason why so much of American historiography simply celebrates the events that happened. In economics, this is particularly true; thus, if the historian records that government subsidized railroads, if just left as is, it seems like a fine thing that more railroads were built. But a historian with sound economic knowledge must point out that such railroads represented "overinvestment" and malinvestment in railroads, which they did. But the author does not do this, and as a result, his economic narrative, in addition to being chronicle rather than meaningful history, is often unwittingly biased in favor of the government action he records."
I think if you remember reading history in school, you can relate to this. A student usually has no idea whatsoever from his textbooks that there existed or exists any criticism of the events laid out matter-of-factly in the book. In fact the student may get the impression, by this omission, that no criticism is possible because the decisions could only have been made one way. Instead, it is very often the case that strenuous debate and ideological or practical criticism surrounded actions and events at the time. Often, revisionist historians, looking back, have uncovered a context which throws those acts into a distinctly different light from the traditional view.
The "objective" history is in fact highly subjective, and biased by excluding subjective content which is critical, whereas the establishment "facts," in being sanitized of criticism (or in some cases, any significant context) appear spotless and monolithic.
Unbiased history?