Yes. Now, among professional historians. In postcolonial studies, many scholars accept Gayatri Spivak's argument that subaltern people cannot be given a historical voice through western documents. Because many of these subaltern people (like, say, the Maya) left -- and probably kept -- very little in the way of written records, western sources form nearly the only textual evidence available.

Inga Clendinnen deals with this problem in her book Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570 by approaching the extended Maya/Spaniard encounter first from Spanish sources, and then from Mayan sources. The Mayan sources are obviously much more limited, but she includes architectural and archaeological evidence as well as the very limited available textual evidence. In addition, it's possible to view her account from Mayan evidence as supported by the account from Spanish evidence. Still, the book shows how much more difficult it is to access the experience of non-literate people when they encountered the West.

There are some similar problems that run along class lines, especially in times of relatively low literacy. Natalie Zemon Davis and Carlo Ginzburg offer some attempts at dealing with the problem of studying illiterate or pseudo-literate peasants.

To reiterate what /u/Sebatinsky said and talk a little more about the history of subaltern studies, especially since Spivak's contribution to academic society at large can hardly be overstated and I'm not sure that you'll get that from only one top level comment:

Spivak's "Can the Subaltern Speak?" concerns itself largely with two issues: sati (widow burning) and the place of the intellectual in history. She takes Deleuze and Foucault, not minor scholars by any stretch of the imagination, for placing themselves 'outside' of history rather than 'within' histoy - as if scholars are morally neutral agents in the practices of colonialism and are beyond reproach or even self examination. This is contrary to how colonial states function: large swaths of our history and anthropology departments (particularly our Area Studies departments) are legacies of an educational apparatus designed to create knowledge about colonized people so that colonial administrators could govern more effectively.

With regards to sati, Spivak points out that we have two accounts of sati: that of colonial administrators, and that of Hindu leaders. Not of women who were burned. We do not know how these women felt about the issue (presumably less enthusiastic than the Hindu leaders), and these voices are lost to us. The irrecoverability of this part of the historical record constitutes yet another means of screwing women in India then and today: women didn't have opinions on sati then, why should they have opinions on sexual harassment and assault today? After all, in the past women knew how to be silent, why can't they keep their mouths shut today?

Spivak was really a literary critic and actually a somewhat late addition to the Subaltern Studies Collective. Ranajit Guha can really be considered the father of the group, and he was a historian who started with the very Maoist mission of recreating a history of illiterate peasants during the late Raj based on the 'shadows' they cast on the historical record. His work, and that of Chatterjee, Chakrabarty, Arnold, Sarkar, etc. demonstrated the various ways in which Indians below a certain threshold of social relevance were excluded from various conversations. Critically, Gandhi specifically and the Congress generally treated peasants as an expendable resource, and when they dissented from Congress platforms or even worse acted without orders from Gandhi and others, were ignored, disavowed, and/or disparaged. An absolutely critical test of this relevance was literacy: if a group was illiterate, their dissent only carried as far as their voices and as long as they raised a fuss, and so their opinions and politics ceased to exist as soon as they stopped protesting, and in this way could reasonably be treated as incapable of long-term, meaningful political contribution.

This article by Shahid Amin provides some good evidence of how illiterate people were marginalized:

It is worth stressing here that the Gandhi - darshari motif in nationalist discourse reveals a specific attitude towards th e subalterns—the sadharan janta or ordinary people as they are referred to in the nationalist Hindi press. To behold the Mahatma in person and become his devotees were the only roles assigned to them, while it was for the urban intelligentsia and full- time party activists to convert this groundswell of popular feeling into an organized movement. Thus it would appear that even in the relationship between peasant devotees and their Mahatma there was room for political mediation by the economically better off and socially more powerful followers.

The work continues in the same vein and is typical of subaltern studies accounts of the Indian struggle for independence: traders, landlords, intelligentsia, brahmins, rajas, etc speak and the Congress listens, attempts to adjust their agenda to better suit the needs and interests of these men; peasants speak, congress hands more power over to landlords. After all, what are the peasants going to do? They can't even write a history that makes Congress look bad or illegitimate.

An interesting opinion appears in the fairly controversial Art of Not Being Governed by James Scott. He proposes that in Highland Asia, illiteracy is a deliberate strategy of anarchist resistance to not just colonizers but also their own 'native' governments becoming oppressive and regimented (man of them have mythologies where they were previously literate and only became illiterate later, often due to misdeeds by lowland peoples that they dislike). However, he makes it fairly clear that these highland societies, which have been successful for a pretty damn long time time, are going extinct and do not stand a chance of successfully stopping the march of GPS, all-weather roads, and in the case of Burma (his case study), long range artillery, commando operations, and labor camps.

To add to this question, can someone confirm a claim that Genghis Khan went into history books as a tyrant because of his mistreatment of the types that went on to record his history?

As a related question, is "history is written by the victors" still true? Is there some bias checker in place for modern hostorians?