Bias and neutrality

These past few days in class, we've been examining a textbook chapter on the american colonists' treatment of the natives, examining diction to give clues to the author's bias. After looking closely, it seems the author's bias in favor of the Indians is ridden everywhere. The language all serves to portray the white colonists as slaughterers and the Indians as innocent victims. As the saying goes, 'history is written by the victors, and so historical accounts will be written from the victor's point of view. In this case, the author's sympathy for the defeated Indians prevailed. Often times, however, the victor's account will portray the defeated side in a negative light.

It seems to me as if one's bias is inevitably inserted into their writing. Even if pure objectivity is intended, an author will have a hard time if not an impossible one avoiding the use of language that emphasizes his personal view point. He will also pick and choose the facts he wishes to include accordingly. If one reads Tacitus' accounts of the Roman conquering of Britain, or any other "barbarian" nation for that matter, the conquered tribes are portrayed as brutal savages, living primitively, and brought out of their dark ways by Roman influence. Contemporary european accounts of the crusades portrayed the crusaders as heroes, whereas muslim accounts obviously gave an opposite viewpoint. I doubt there has ever been a work of historical documentation written which truly refrains from bias.