How much is enough?

I am currently writing about indigenous postmodern/contemporary identities. The topic is thrilling and the performance pieces I analyze do bring about a fresh take on what is indigenous and who defines it, so about the intricacies of identity politics. My concern however is on not making arguments in my analysis that might read as bias, I mean, more inclined to one side of the spectrum, as I try to portray for real all the contradictions that are present precisely on anyone's identity construction. I believe that my position is strongly political, even if anchored in solid and thoroughly researched arguments, because the primary sources with which I am working, are very cleared politically marked. I don't believe in the aseptic and "scientific" academic whose pretended impartiality agenda is so admired by his peers. We all have our motives and background. We're all product of certain influences and have our own personal journey through life. However, how much is one allowed to disclose because one cares of our political agenda? In my particular case, should I try harder not to identify with certain indigenous predicaments, and instead resort to reporting mode without any analysis or interpretation on my part? How much is enough when you are speaking for the Other even though you really don't want to. I can't get over the issue of academic authority and basically want to be fair and ethical, but I'm having a lot of mixed feelings and thoughts. What's your opinion?