In addition to the other answers, I’ll also put forth the distinction between many individuals lending their unique interpretations based on their individual bi

In addition to the other answers, I’ll also put forth the distinction between many individuals lending their unique interpretations based on their individual biases and a politically cohesive batch of historians revising expressly for political activist purposes. This is why academic heterodoxy is important. Note also that this all mirrors debates about the media, another epistemological institution with a high degree of political homogeneity (and a similar orientation as among historians), which also has a lot of folks who argue that journalists shouldn’t be obliged to pursue objective or neutral narratives because perfect neutrality and objectivity are unachievable (in other words, they implicitly argue that 99.9% objective, neutral reporting is no different than 0%).