You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One c

You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One can, and should, draw political conclusions from history, but that doesn't mean that professional historians are being overtly political merely for expanding the focus of their research. I'll point out that the expanding focus of history has been constant at least since the mid-1800s. The historian Fernand Braudel once quoted the historian Jules Michelet, who had boasted in 1862, "Only in the modern age have we discovered truly universal history." Braudel remarked "Even since then historian's have been looking over their shoulder." The point is, Michelet felt he had invented universal history because he had expanded the focus of history to include some economic realities, yet his focus still seemed limited compared to the work that Braudel and the Annales School were doing in the early and mid 20th Century. And so Braudel wondered, would his own work seem limited to people living in the mid 21st Century? And of course, the answer is yes. The concerns of history, and the methods of historiography, continue to expand, constantly.