Do you believe that writing history is subjective and has biases? Why or why not?

Ofcourse. History can never be neutral. Writing history is necessarily retelling of a past event. Thus the mental pre occupations of the writer is bound to influence the writing.

Historiography is tricky and complex task which includes debates and disagreements among different schools. The historical sources such as archaeological, numismatic evidences, epicgraphic and literary texts does not always give a direct image of the past society from which informations could be mechanically plucked out. Rather its gives a refracted image of the past from which actual facts are needed to be teased out.

There are also chances of interpolations of ancient texts, distortion of evidences due to the ravages of time and misinterpretation of the contemporary texts. All these can influence the writing of history .

Another vital factor that needs to be considered while judging the authenticity of a text is the background of the writer, the sources to which he was exposed,the patron of writing and his affiliation to any particular ideology and motive of writing .

A good historian must eliminate any biasedness and distortion of facts while writing history. But it can surely be subjctive.

Try a? sorry if i’m wrong