Disregarding Bias in Historical Accounts

When it comes to historical accounts, no one can ever be sure of their accuracy if it involves two sides and human personality. You see, we have this thing that seems to get in the way of telling a completely truthful account: bias. It clouds the judgment of people on juries, it decides whether or not someone gets a work position; regardless of how people say that no bias is in decisions, there is always a base amount. It's not something we can control, because all humans have it, even the most tolerant ones. In the terms of history, this can end up being problematic when writing accounts on events with eyewitness views. Depending on the event, if there were two sides that were fighting for opposite ends, you will encounter a skewed view of the event as a whole. It's our job as historians (and at a smaller scale, students of history) to ignore this bias and still create as accurate an account as possible. With some examples (gosh, I really like using those, don't I?), I'm going to try and help you along this journey of disregarding bias.

It is the year 20XX. Group A and Group B have been feuding for quite some time, over who owns what land. Eventually, things get so out of hand that a war is begun, called the AB War. During the Battle of the Fence, Group A wins a decisive victory over Group B. A reporter rushes into the war zone to interview survivors of the battle. They get two interviews of eyewitnesses, a soldier from Group A and a soldier from Group B (who is wounded). Your job is to create an account of the battle from these two interviews, as unbiased as possible. Here they are:

"Oh, those little B ants were scrambling like mad once they saw us coming over that ridge. They looked like they'd about pissed themselves they were so scared! I got at least 20 of those buggers before they started runnin' out of reach, and then it was my job to take prisoners. I came up to one guy, and he was beggin' me for mercy. His face was so swollen I couldn't even see his nose. They always told us how those cowards would rather beg than fight. I spit on him and put a bullet right between his eyes. They ain't ever gettin' back this fence now!"         -Soldier A

"My leader always talked of how those A devils were afraid. Afraid of fighting, afraid of living, afraid of us. When I saw them at the top of the hill, they didn't look like an army. They ran in 20 directions, firing randomly, and looking as if they had seen their Maker. One of them got me in the shoulder here, and I fell. The only reason we ran back was because they had more ammo than us. They'll tell you it was because we were cowards, but you and I know the truth. They are the ones who know not what they're doing."                 -Soldier B

These two interviews are drastically different from each other, even though they are about the same battle. The bias seems to be more heavy in Soldier A's opinions than B's; he refers to Group B as "cowards", "buggers", "begging for mercy". Soldier B calls Group A "devils" and "afraid", but seems to go more into the technical side of things. The main point is this; any personal opinions stressed by these two people cannot be put into the account. I suggest making a list of events without opinion of the the two arguments, like so:

• Group B was outnumbered
• Group A took Group B by surprise? (Not sure; could've been expected)
• Group A had more ammunition than Group B
• Group A took prisoners (maybe killed; soldier A could be bragging here)
• Group B retreated due to the previous point

With this list, you can see a timeline of this battle. Notice how I didn't mention any of the personal comments of Soldier A or B, as they include severe bias of the other group. With this list, I can write the following account:

"The Battle of the Fence in the AB War was an attack by Group A on Group B's outpost at the Fence of C. Group A charged up a hill and attacked Group B from above. Group B, not having enough ammunition to ward off Group A, retreated as many of them fell. Group A took 56 prisoners and killed 77 B soldiers; they also took control of the Fence. This would be the deciding battle in the AB War for Group A and would lead later on to the 2nd Battle of the Fence..."

While it's not perfect, this account of the battle is from eyewitness views, with absolutely no bias. In real life, trying to create accounts of historical events like this is very hard, especially if all the eyewitnesses are deceased. The phrase "History is decided by the victors" is used in situations like this; sometimes a perfectly unbiased account is impossible because we don't have the other side's story. But with enough work, we can write accounts without bias, and give a full look at some of the biggest events in history (I'm looking at you, Hatfields and McCoys).

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep