> Historians have absolutely no trouble with the idea that the archive can produce multiple narratives and that no narrative is the absolute truth.

and

> I find it frustrating to see so many people with no or minimal background in anything resembling the discipline making wide proclamations about the limitations of history writing.

I think I already made the same point as you, ie that no narrative is the absolute truth.

You then say how my comment frustrates you. In fact, you provide a case in point about how easily things can be misunderstood!

You accurately quote what I said about evidence, but failed to provide the context from the preceeding remark, where I talk about the appearance of 'mountains of evidence'. I'm not sure if it is intentional, but I feel like you have cherry picked something too make your point, despite my intention!

Here is what I said:

> We really can't know how people lived a 1000 years ago, despite what might appear to be mountains of evidence. This evidence is actually the creation of historians in the past century... and when you look at their sources for yourself, you will see that they are open to interpretation despite being presented as fact.

Your comment has a very strong connotation of "therefore history writing is either to be mistrusted or even downright wrong." You argue that history writing is a tool of the state or other power structures rather than honest analysis by competing professionals. That interpretation does not follow from the understanding that history writing is construction of narrative.

I think you are unreasonably critical of historical writing and are presenting a false claim about what historical writing today looks like.

Do you not think that historical writing is a tool of the state or, as I prefer to call it, the governance system? (I think the state is also a part of the governance system, a red v blue puppet show.)

I hesitate to mention this, but here is an overt example of state management. You know it is a criminal offence to discuss certain events in World War 2 in many countries, including Germany and Canada? I use this as an example to illustrate that honest analysis of history is not possible if there is no freedom of speech. If potentially important information is unavailable, we are being 'guardrailed' - only certain authorised lines of thought can occur. History is not a naturally unfolding cronicle of reality.

For the masses, it is even more simple - just manage what is on the school syllabus and they will never know. But, they will believe what they are taught is true as it is presented unambiguously, rather than a provided narrative - we agree on this. This is intentional - the main value of history is that it is accepted as truth. History is what is expedient for the masses to believe in the present. Only sanctioned historians can alter it.

Also, do you realise that professional historians typically live their entire lives beholden to the state for their livelihoods? Could you risk biting the hand that feeds you?

So, I think it is quite possible that the historians believe they are being honest and well-intentioned AND also be supportive of the governance structure. Their education will provide them with a clear but narrow sense of what is acceptable. They will know when they are flying close to the wire or over-stepping the line.

I don't think this is a history specific issue btw. I think all education serves a role, though most people are unaware of how they are guided through their lives. So science, history, economics, technology, etc, etc have all been bent to serve a purpose that is not in our interests. We can pretend it isn't so if we like... but the evidence is there when we look.

Weaponization of historical memory is absolutely a thing that states can do for their own benefit. But you've got the logic backwards. This is not proof that history academics are tools of the state and are producing propaganda. In fact, historians are deliberately attacked by various political forces for being subversive or otherwise.

I am married to a history professor. I am quite aware of the relationship that historians have with funding bodies and state-run universities. I do not conclude anything close to resembling what you conclude in your post. I think you are making a completely false and ignorant claim about the field and about the author of the linked blog post in particular. This "we cannot actually trust what professionals write" and "go look at the sources yourself" approach is just folly. Professionals who've spent thousands and thousands of hours studying methodology and embedding themselves in the archive are simply able to understand the archive better than laypeople can.