History is used to validate contemporary socio-political philosophy.
Even the sciences fall victim to this (remember the gay gene, climate change at its apex?). But in the sciences, you can still find where an objective, empirical, methodology was used to come up with an answer.
But things like history or the social sciences, which are interpretive, where we can pick and choose what we want to address (focus in on), tell us a story that nearly always fits the currents of contemporary times or whatever some subculture controlling that narrative wants to teach.
Can history teach us something? Of course.
But given American pop culture, the current fads that are important, you can expect lots of stories about female warriors, female run / led societies, homosexuality being normal in other societies, evil conquistadors and settlers, wholsitic and natural native American indians living in harmony with nature, bla bla bla....
Yes, “history” is mostly junk.
There are plenty of people like me, who have been interested in history and began reading books containing factual historical accounts as kids, and continue to study it. We are not concerned with or influenced by the reinterpretation of history by pop culture. We know that historical fact is not the stuff in fantasy novels and action movies set in an era of history a couple of 1000 years ago...
That goes for psuedo science, too-anyone who took basic biology in HS knows that genetics do not have anything with homosexuality, gender confusion, etc, nor has it ever. That is a product of parenting and the resulting emotional issues-nurture-not nature, perpetuated by those in society who use the mentally confused/ill for their own purposes...
The idea that female Japanese warriors were common is not promoted by the article-it is doing the opposite-relying on historical fact-and illustrations-to say that although they did exist, they were not a huge group, charging into battle, but rather something of a rare thing, and deferring to males in their family...