Whiggish, Marxist, Hegelian, religious, essientally any history with a narrative or looking through the lens of a viewpoint seems to be very much rejected (see Howard Zinn).

Are there any acceptable historians, histories, or history books with a very strong bent accepted?

I want to figure the historian's consensus on these issues because just looking through this sub and /r/badhistory it seems as if 98% of what commoners believe about history is full of shit, 100% of what libertarians (Paul style or chomsky style) is full or shit, 85% of history books are full of shit, 75% of what's in non college textbooks is full of shit, 95% of what atheist believe about the history of Islam and Christianity is full of shit, and history believed by ideologues (hitchens, chomsky, etc) is 60-75% full of shit. What all of these things have in common is that they have a strong religious or ideological bent and want history to conform to it. Is this why post- modern, post-structuralist, post-post, anti "presentist", nihilist relativist about everything style-histories are the most popular here and in academia? Or are opinionated, moral (praising or indignant), narrative or meta narrative histories that stand their ground against post modernist ideas?