Reading history =/= practicing history. This seems to be a massive, massive misconception about what we actually do.
The ability to critically analyze and form interpretive synthesis in history- which are not just empty buzzwords- comes from instruction, work, feedback, and refinement.
And btw, plenty of non-historians write popular history books. Problems with their methodology and analysis aside, it's actually imo a serious problem for us. The reason why, say, a journalist (for example) can sell "history" books is because they know how to write in a way that connects with lay audiences. We have a major problem with academics writing only to each other in a closed loop. A big part of the reason I went into public history is to engage with people in ways and on subjects that are relevant to them.