Predjudice in history

For instance if two historians with different views, write about the same topic, their choice of what is important information and what is not will differ, and so will the result. As E Dance said in his book History the betrayer "It is commonly supposed that history is over and done with, and therefore unalterable. The basis of this idea is that history is the past. But history is not the past-it is the record of the past. If there is no record, there is no history; if there is a record there is a recorder, whose views and prejudices enter into his record, and colour it."(2) .
             Often historians views are heavily influenced, by the evidence that is available to them. A good historian will seek out all the best available evidence, but this depends on the time that they are writing and the place. If the historian does not have all the facts then their view and interpretation of the subject matter will be prejudiced. For instance in Britain official papers are kept confidential for 30years, if an historian is writing about a subject where the papers remain confidential, then the historian does not have the all the facts and so their view will be biased, as they are only working on limited evidence. But does this mean that the same historian will have the same views when the data is released after the 30years, or will their view change? Or will other later historians, assesses their work and working with more data and information, come to another conclusion?.
             Another aspect to consider when assessing whether the historian can ever be free of prejudice is what other factors the historian comes up against. Their views are one factor, not one historian has the same viewpoint to another. For instance historians influenced by Marxist theories will tend to focus on the economic relationship of classes, whereas other historians will focus on the importance of individuals, giving a different viewpoint to that of the Marxist theory.