This sometimes manifests through a bias that favors their cultural context, due to being exposed to only stories which they have been told are important parts of history, and which they perceive as having greater magnitude than narratives they are not familiar with. This can be seen in nations like Japan often wholly overlooking WWII, teaching it as a relatively minor historical incident. A similar example is the United States’ downplaying of the Vietnam War. In the rare case it even is discussed, the monumental impact which the war had on the citizens of Vietnam is typically belied. The intention of the war as a brutal proxy war within the overall context of the Cold War is additionally typically overlooked, and it is usually shown as a glorious anticommunist campaign. This narrative portrays the United States as valiantly attempting to save many Vietnamese citizens from a cruel totalitarian regime - not giving generations of Vietnamese health complications with the defoliant chemical Agent Orange.

On the other hand, discussions about history can be made contrary to a historian’s cultural context due to their perception of foreign historical narratives as having more truth, importance, or global relevance. In some cases, a later exposure to certain historical developments can make the historian perceive it as having greater magnitude, as it is contrary to the narrative which they were exposed to in their youth or education. This specifically comes into play more notably when individuals are from an education system, culture, or governmental regime which they distrust, in which case they are more likely to view concepts hidden from them as more important or honest in nature. In this case, historians are liable to deeply research this topic, often taking a stance on it radically different from their home context. This is motivated by their perception of their cultural context as uniquely fallible, which often catalyzes the glorification of ideas contrary to aforementioned context. This would be represented in the case in which a historian ends up perceiving the Vietnam War as the most integral part of United States history, as they view it as a horrible incident suppressed by the U.S. government. While the latter part is not incorrect, this perception could lead to the overrepresentation of the significance of this individual war.

Sources
https://www.ushistory.org/us/55.asp

Graham

In the third grade, my classmate threatened to throw a reasonably sized rock at me, for petty reasons, that to a non-third-grader may seem insignificant, but to us seemed earth-shattering at the time. She did not succeed in said attempt, yet I still sought the help of a teacher, for my own safety (in case such an attempt may repeat itself, of course). I told my rendition of the event, but was then utterly appalled by what my peer had to say about the same happening. She claimed that no rock was ever in her hand, and she did indeed not threaten to throw it at my face, and it was in fact I that had called her names. We had heard what each of us had said and done to each other, and my account seemed truthful and universal to me, but she of course felt the same. 

This goes to show that there is no common truth. Historians have endless amounts of facts at their disposal, yet none of them are universal or trustworthy enough to fully confirm that it is true. Therefore historians are forced to choose which arguments best suit their vision of a given event, which inevitably will be affected by a subconscious understanding of the world, which stems from their individual cultural context.

Isalina Klinkby Steimle

Academic work is usually expected to be objective, substantiable, and open to question. The historian’s work must have followed the academic guidelines that ensure objectivity and must withstand peer review. The primary goal of cultural knowledge and experience is to add credibility to academic work. For example, Edward Said, a famous scholar engaged with the topic of Israeli-Palestine conflict, has the experience of being a Palestinian-American and working in the Palestine National Council. His cultural knowledge of Palestine credits him to be trusted with interpreting the nuances of the conflict, especially the relevant US foreign policy and the Palestinian people’s struggles. Said’s views are not neutral; he was actively against the Oslo peace process between Palestine and Israel in the early 1990s and is highly critical of US and Israeli policies. His cultural understanding credited his strong views instead of discrediting them as mere cultural biases. He is regarded as a public intellectual and the founder of postcolonial studies, and his work is widely celebrated. 

Cultural context is not the source of bias, and it should not be. It assists people in achieving a more sophisticated understanding of difficult topics. Thus historians and scholars investigate culture contexts different to that of their own and learn the cultural context of the other. Perry Link is another scholar who is honored in their field of study; he gives delicate interpretations of Chinese politics that accounts for the influence of the Chinese cultural context. He is white American and his cultural understanding of China is completely learnt. He acquires the knowledge of a cultural context to credit his study of that culture. This knowledge also constructively impacts his studies as he almost internalizes the foreign cultural context as his own. 

Sources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Said

Ziwei 

When we talk about culture, we talk about how someone is raised, what values they are told a 

nd which events activate which emotions. Culture are social values that we ubsurve from a very young age. And since our brains are altered to react according to these values, we often don’t even recognize being affected by them. It already starts with the research topic. We tend to be most interested in something that we have strong feelings about. When we then find more and more evidence, we tend to prefere subtopics that we find most valuable and interesting. According to studies done by Harvard Macy institute it’s impossible to be completely unbias all the time. In longterm studies the institute found out, that the bias we have because of personal preferences is changeable, however cultural background seems to be implemented deeply in our interests and values. In the UK the public started critizising their history as “white” due to massive underrepresentation of the perspectives of people of color. Taking the Harvard Macy study, this might be because 95% of british historians are white. 

While humans and therefore historians might can’t be completely unbias by their cultural background, society can be more critic about which information they’re accepting. 

- lisa

Harvard Macy Institute - Blog - Can we be Consciously Unbiased?
Why is history in the UK so white? | Wonkhe

I don’t think that a historian can truly be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material because we are all biased in one way or another. Whether that may be a confirmation bias or authoritative bias, we all have a bias. The same can be said for historians because they are also human beings. It is never easy for historians to document history without adding their own perspective, therefore, making the information they have subjective to the way they choose to interpret it. 

A good example of a historian whose bias had an effect on the work he published was David Irving, who wrote about the military and political history of World War II. David Irving denied the Holocaust by claiming that Hitler was not aware of the persecution of the Jews, and if he was, he opposed it. David Irving misinterpreted historical information to promote further what he believed, which was Holocaust denial. He believed in the works of Ernst Zundel, and that had an influence on the work that he published. 

David Irving had a bias towards the events of World War II, and it influenced how he portrayed his message. 

David Irving was not able to separate his own personal beliefs from the truth, and that had an effect on the work he published. And because of that, he interpreted his information along with his bias. When looking back to the question, it is extremely hard or nearly impossible for historians to truly give their account of events without adding their own beliefs. This is one of the reasons there are so many versions of history today. Because each historian felt the need to share the information that they had with their own bias. In the end, this also poses the question of what is really true and what is an opinion because all the knowledge we have is from the events written by biased historians.

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-irving

Using the definition of history, as long as all the evidence for a claim has been provided and corresponds with each other, it should be looked at as accurate until proven otherwise. Some can say that perspective can cause history to be inaccurate, and even though it may be true in some cases, if there are two different interpretations of a singular event, which have opposing sides, as long as the underlying message of what happened is the same, then it should generally be acceptable, and that is history, even though the impressions left on the reader might be wrong, it doesn’t change what happened. Hence they are both equally valid.

However in the case of David Irving denying the Holocaust and suggesting that Adolf Hitler helped the Jews escape can be deemed as inaccurate as there is no evidence supporting the claim. Instead, there is evidence and documentation, like Anne Frank’s diary clearly describing the events of the Holocaust. 
-Anjie