I don’t find history boring or irrelevant; I find the way history is presented boring and irrelevant.
The following is boring:
Activists in Lower Canada began to work for reform in a period of economic disfranchisement of the French-speaking majority and working-class English-speaking citizens. The rebellion protested the injustice of colonial governing as such, in which the governor and upper house of the legislature were appointed by the Crown. Many of its leaders and participants were English-speaking citizens of Lower Canada. The French speakers felt that Anglophones were disproportionately represented in the lucrative fields of banking, the timber trade, and transportation industry.
I don’t have a connection to most of that stuff. There’s no narrative, and the language is tedious.
She’s standing in the public square
She listens to them speak
Of the fraudulence and flatulence
They call the Château Clique
How the governor’s asleep,
And all the judges, they grow fat
Of dying crops and cholera,
In mille huit cent trente-quatre.
With eloquence, injustices are attacked by Papineau
Others say, "Melt your spoons to bullets."
Which way shall she go?
Or, for another example, most of what I can tell you about Viking raids, the Byzantine Empire, the An Lushan rebellion, and so forth, I learned from Guy Gavriel Kay’s fictionalized accounts of them (and being inspired to look more deeply into “did that really happen?”), rather than from just reading the Wikipedia articles about the same.
History plainly doesn’t bore me. Its presentation does.