And I hate this statement that since something is supposedly "informed by ideology" that it must be so biased as to be ignored. All methods of historical analysis are informed by ideology, because each is a different school that looks at different parts of history through different lenses. It would be like complaining that philosophers are "informed by ideology," just as ridiculous a statement, it's almost a tautology. There's looking at the same event or persons from ideological parallax, and there's skewing or re-inventing the facts to fit your ideological agenda. But again, that abuse can happen in any method, with any person, because even if your analysis is less "ideologically informed" than another's, you're still informed by your own personal prejudices and other influences on your decision-making about what is and is not important, what is and is not biased, and other things, which are informed in turn by culture and your education, which are informed by ideology at their base. So there's no escaping it. Pretending that one has no ideological bias is disingenuous at best, and actively harmful at worst.