This is just absolutely factually wrong and betrays a total lack of understanding of the field. History manuscripts are released constantly that are investigating and discussing contents of the archive that have been sitting in a box unexamined since the time of their creation. Even if you take the outrageously limited view of history that it just exists to document the past, we make significant progress constantly.
There's also no research money in the field for egos to squabble over. Research grants for historians are regularly in the "couple of thousand dollars" range.
I wish I could agree, and happy to be shot down but I am not seeing anything that is not just a re-interpretation of current facts to make history sound nicer. there has certainly been nothing uncovered this century that has changed anything and I mean anything important about the current world and the original article was about economic benefits to our country which there frankly are none. Subjective "research" IMHO is a waste of taxpayer dollars when objective research is still underfunded.
This is just absolutely factually wrong and betrays a total lack of understanding of the field. History manuscripts are released constantly that are investigating and discussing contents of the archive that have been sitting in a box unexamined since the time of their creation. Even if you take the outrageously limited view of history that it just exists to document the past, we make significant progress constantly.
There's also no research money in the field for egos to squabble over. Research grants for historians are regularly in the "couple of thousand dollars" range.