Is it possible to find out about your countries history from an unbiased perspective?

By and large, it's not possible to find an unbiased account of history. Bias can be unconscious - indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it often is - but it's almost always there in some form, from something as basic as the words used. Consider, for instance, a salient example here in Ireland at the moment, accounts of the 1916 Easter Rising (an unsuccessful rebellion against British control of Ireland). Here are some statements about it:

"The Rising took place without the consent of, and indeed in places, against the Irish people."
"The Easter Rising of 1916 is one of the most commemorated events in modern Irish History."
"The perpetrators of the Easter Rising of 1916 were fanatic Catholics who sought not to establish independence, but to put Ireland in the 20th century under the control of the Church of Rome."

(I have just invented all of these statements; I'm not quoting anyone.)

All of these statements are, broadly, true. Apart from statement 3, where I attribute motivations that might not be true for all of those involved in the Rising, I can point at documentation and historical opinion to support everything.

However, each of them has a definite bias in the wording. In statement 1, "without the consent of" and "against" give an impression of someone imposing a rebellion on the Irish without any need, desire, or understanding. It was a rebellion; advertising such events in advance leads to failure every time - and this was evident from the previous century of Irish history. So getting 'consent' is a silly idea. Likewise, when I say "against", it implies that the ordinary Irish man in the street tried to put down the rebellion, which is not the case - the rebels were resisted in several locations by workers of the premises they were trying to take over, but mostly people took cover instead.

In statement 2, again, word choice is not neutral. "Commemoration" is a word with positive connotations. There are no commemorations of murders or other crimes (although there might be for their victims). There are indeed a large number of events and publications planned this year, a century later, and it's likely that most of the organisers and publishers think of them in a positive light. But it's still a biased statement.

Statement 3 has a clear bias. Words like "fanatic" and "control" are negative, and "Church of Rome" is a phrase mostly used by people who don't like the Roman Catholic church. But it's still an entirely defensible statement.

The issue here is that apart from something as blank and unhelpful as "The Easter Rising took place in 1916", you can't say anything about it without having some bias in there from your choice of words.

Quite apart from that, there is a tendency in any country to depict the world from that point of view, and to ignore the stuff that doesn't have a bearing on it. So in the USA, you'll hear about the stuff that is relevant to the United States - The Boston Tea Party and Independence and maybe Vietnam. In England, you'll hear about the British Empire and WWII. In Ireland, you'll hear about British Oppression and the Great Famine. In France, you'll hear about The Revolution. And so on.

You're never going to arrive at a neutral point of view, either - you have your own biases. Many of these we don't think of as being biases, but just things that are right. Things like polygamy, death penalties, child marriage, homosexuality, consumption of pork, treatment of cattle, and so forth (picking a few things that occur to me) have, at various points in history been lauded, condemned, or considered irrelevant, and our era has a point of view on all of them. The best you can do is read widely on whatever topic you're studying, ideally reading material from both sides of a conflict as well as a neutral party or two, and make up your own mind as to what actually happened. Which, because you're human, will still be biased.