This is a book for a very specific audience. Windschuttle lays out a well-researched debunking of the current politically correct fads in the discipline of history. You'll find this book useful if you're interested in the esoteric differences among structuralism, poststructuralism, modernism, postmodernism, postcolonialism, relativism, tribalism and a long parade of other isms, not to mention a few stragglers like semiotics and hermeneutics. Certainly these theories and schools of thought have become popular among historians, much to the detriment of strict historical study at the expense of real "facts." As Windschuttle nicely sums up, these disciplines start with ill-defined theories then bend the historical facts to fit the theory. A prime example is the shifting treatment of European explorers and the uncritical praise of non-Western viewpoints.
Unfortunately this book merely becomes an intellectual catfight that is better left to the obscure halls of academia. Windschuttle fails to explain what true historical "facts" really consist of, and how his own strictly traditionalist approach is morally or literally superior to the new disciplines. In fact, Windschuttle shows many indications of a frustrated right-winger fighting back against the left-wing fads, with no possibility of compromise in the middle, and no possibility of admitting that his approach may have some weaknesses as well. This is most evident in the effort Windschuttle expends in painstakingly debunking some very minor works by minor academics, such as Greg Dening in Chapter 3 and Paul Carter in Chapter 4. This book merely shows one intellectual complaining about his peers, with little effort to explain how this applies to the non-academic world. Such disputes have little connection with the general public and are suspiciously personal in nature, as Windschuttle has merely expanded these very doctrinaire disputes with his colleagues into book form.