Your comment made me dig up "Historical text as literary artifact".

I have several thoughts on that, but one very important analogy stood out to me and is succinct enough to comment here. In statistics, one talks about the population, collecting data (sampling from the popluation), and building a model from the collected data. You may have guessed that the collected data alone does not typically make much sense, but for the patterns encapsulated by the model, which then has explanatory power; yet among the three classes I mentioned, it is the most fictitious and constructed for a particular goal, the most inauthentic.

History deals with very small, very heterogeneous datasets. Finding patterns in them (if they even exist) is very difficult, and it's why historical models and grand unified theories are so often bunk.

> deals with very small, very heterogeneous datasets.

The population itself is a very heterogeneous "dataset", that becomes (perhaps) apprehensible after you interrogate it with respect to the statistical question you have in mind. Let's not forget that the neatness of the data is constructed from the narrowness of the question asked of it, and even still the data is expected (in the colloquial sense) to take on a minimally-informative, max-entropy distribution, except in respect to the statistic of interest. The critical questions levied against historiography also apply here: perhaps the question you are collecting data for is not related to the population the way you think it is.

> why historical models and grand unified theories are so often bunk.

A lot of history practiced today are self-aware of just how much narrative has to be invented to "make sense" of historical events, and so historians value diverse perspectives. One understands that the same events may not hold the same meaning across communities, and so seeks to record and compare how they are perceived across communities or individuals; that perception in that community's narrative is at least subjectively authentic for that community or individual.

To the extent that the historical goal is to predict political/cultural/economic future, perhaps political/cultural theorists/economists are better positioned.

If we don't learn from history, why do we do history? Is it a form of pure entertainment, i.e. of arts? If so, does that give more credence to White's argument?

I have had a PhD colleague who genuinely believed that history ought to be (in the philosophical normative sense) contributing to national propaganda, thus of national interest. By extension, this is why history departments should be funded by tax dollars.

They're academics, their job is to make true statements and maintain a culture that cares a lot about whether their colleagues can prove them false. Beyond that, it is hard to figure out what purpose they might be fulfilling.

What's tricky is that indeed such stories need not be factual to be powerful, just as long as they resonate well-enough with the current "common-sense" and have some kind authority behind it giving it credence.

Historians do have an important responsibility here in making sure that people are aware of the real story so that they are not easily manipulated, just like journalists have a similar responsibility in a democracy, fourth estate and all.

This is true on an individual as well as a collective level, and goes well beyond academia. Consider genealogy & family history, local and regional culture and traditions, remembrance,... There is always a personal connection, and that tends to become extremely tangible in individual stories. Whether that's finding a lost relative, honoring one's culture, or just being able to empathize with the lives of people who are centuries gone and discovering that they weren't all that different from us today.

Historians do carry a big responsibility. That's why accountability is at the heart of anyone who does historical research on a professional level; or are motivated to spread their interpretation of the historical record well beyond a few listeners. That's why historians are instilled with a reflex to keep a pragmatic attitude and ask critical questions.

Historians uncover and communicate the story of humanity in as rich and diverse of a way as possible. This is, in my mind, somewhat comparable to the process of doing pure math research or fundamental physics research. While there may be practical outcomes for today (either unexpected or intended as a goal of a particular research direction), we also understand that doing math for its own purposes is valuable.

The process of doing archival research, putting sources in dialog with other research, and even simply reading secondary source writing achieves some positive outcomes. It widens and deepens empathy for the rich diversity of human behavior. It builds skills for critical analysis of media and communication. It can provide narrative and argument for people advocating for change today (both good and bad). But these do not need to be the reasons why we embark on history research. They are side outcomes of undirected analysis.

I'll also add that concern about "history departments funded by tax dollars" is just factually unfounded. My wife is a history and the size of grants is hilarious coming from my background in CS. Like, a grant for $2,000-$5,000 would be considered chunky. And grants are often coming from weird places like random corporations or donor funding rather than from the government. The NEH was already basically dead before Trump 2.0 and now is dead and buried. People upset about academic history can rest easy knowing that there aren't historians living large on your tax dollars.

Historians, imho, serve a similar purpose for society at large. They digest the information of the past to make sense of it for today, and sometimes they build dams that redirect the informational flow of future history.