You may say the history of some niche topic isn't political, but it is and I am pretty sure most historians would agree. E.g. if you look at technological inven

You may say the history of some niche topic isn't political, but it is and I am pretty sure most historians would agree. E.g. if you look at technological inventions you just have to look how that history treated prior or parallel inventions by people who were seen as lesser by those who wrote the history books, that means women, people of non-european cultural and ethnic decent. Don't get me wrong: There should be no reason at all to make technological history political, but in practise it is, was and will be made political, either subconsciously or on purpose. Even a good historian can't separate themselves from their own blind spots or darlings — and those colour their selections. And whenever you have to make selections you get political no matter how hard you try not to. Try to talk to a certain class of people a about whether Lady Ada Lovelace wrote the first thing deserving to be called a computer program — this should be a matter of facts, but you may quickly find yourself in a heated debate lead by people who have no clue what the logical flow of that program entails. Every history is political because telling a story about the past that isn't commonly told is political and not telling a story about the past that should be told is political as well. And both constantly happen, regardless of which subsection of history we look at.