What an awful article. Leaving aside the later half, which is just a vague denouncement of various right wing stances on history, the former part concerns itself with revisionist history, which seeks to rearrange ancient or medieval history.
History will always be plagued by the various issues the article point out, most narrators are totally unreliable, most documents which have existed are lost and might have been intentionally destroyed, physical evidence is selected by the surrounding environment, measurement techniques are imprecise and the amount of things that happened is incredibly vast. This state of affairs means that we should expect that there are strong arguments for multiple contradicting theories and that there is a great variety of theories which are supported by much of the evidence. Essentially revisionism should be the default state of history, but of course it isn't.
In physics we have learned in the last hundred years that roughly everything we had previously known was false and that most of the assumptions made were in fact wrong.
History will always be plagued by the various issues the article point out, most narrators are totally unreliable, most documents which have existed are lost and might have been intentionally destroyed, physical evidence is selected by the surrounding environment, measurement techniques are imprecise and the amount of things that happened is incredibly vast. This state of affairs means that we should expect that there are strong arguments for multiple contradicting theories and that there is a great variety of theories which are supported by much of the evidence. Essentially revisionism should be the default state of history, but of course it isn't.
In physics we have learned in the last hundred years that roughly everything we had previously known was false and that most of the assumptions made were in fact wrong.