More generally speaking, where does the current, newer generation of historians stand regarding "dialectic" History? Are we still working under Hegelian principles, and how is that not "teleological" (my philosophy classes are a long ways behind me now)?
Where does cultural history fit in this scheme?
My take is that Fukuyama is not a historian and should not be assessed as one. I actually wrote about that a few months ago, although other contributors might have other takes (in addition to addressing your other questions).