Should historians even strive to be objective? As long as they are not outright lying about events, for example Holocaust denial, or say, saying that Carrhae, Trasimene, and Trebia were decisive Roman victoris. Given that the most famous and august historians of classical antiquity like Heredotus, Livy, Arrian, and Xenophon were known to be biased for their home civilization. I mean perhaps we should not find it morally repugnant that a British historian would take a pro-British empire line with regards to Aboriginal history, while an Aboriginal historian would generally take a pro-Aboriginal line, like Arrian taking a pro-Macedonian bias in Anabasis, or Xenophon having a pro-Greek bias vs. the Persians, as long as you are not dealing outright fabrication. I mean throughout history, it has been a given that historians from a particular side would have a certain spin to their work, which did not detract from their reputation, unlike today.