In my opinion, GIS is a tool that, when used correctly, can help visualize data in more intuitive and useful ways than other, non-spatial or analoge techniques. Placing events not just on a timeline, but on a map, can help highlight connections that might otherwise be lost - especially to audiences not very familiar with the particular area in question. Visualizing space helps ground material in reality, and has the potential to spark interest into delving deeper into the material.

When that is said, GIS is of course, as any technology, not the solution to all the world’s problems. As with any tool, one must be concious of its limitations, and be open about what is lost when data is interpreted spatially (it is often hard to accurately display several dimensions at once, so for example a good spatial representation isn’t necessarily a good temporal one). It is especially challenging when trying to visualize data that is not easily mappable to real positions. Examples include social factors, when the data represents a world view that isn’t easily translatable to cartesian coordinates and data that includes multiple time lines. In those cases, however, I would argue that it is up to the creators to either expand the GIS target space to incorporate this expanded world, or simply use another tool. Though forks are great tools, nobody complains that you will have a hard time trying to use one as a water bottle. I think we need to approach GIS (and other technologies) the same way: Be happy for what they do great, try using it creatively when suitable, and simply look for other tools when they fall short of helping you accomplish your goal.