I'm basing my comment on the implied definition of history being presented in the article. I think it's trying to move history from the category of study for t

I'm basing my comment on the implied definition of history being presented in the article. I think it's trying to move history from the category of study for the sake of study, for "people who simply like the information and modes of thought involved", into that category of things that are essential for everyone to study. I think that's unfair to the other liberal arts and an exaggeration of the universal utility of historical study. You're taking "based on broad stereotype or outright lies," and "worse than zero." out of context, but I'll defend "pile of anecdotes", because that's what even good primary sources are: a non-representative data point of something that happened in an uncontrolled environment. I appreciate what you're saying about the study of history being able to open your mind to the complexity of the world, but that's such a different goal for history than the article presents that I think you're defending a different thing entirely, and not the idea I'm attacking.