Some seem to be suggesting that all historical interpretations and analyses, from those well documented by a large body of evidence through those less well documented, those that are a-historical or anti-historical, to those that are outright invention with no supporting evidence whatsoever are equally valid 'points of view' and all equally credible. This is idiocy.

The 'free exchange of ideas' that Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed as essential to a functioning democracy hardly means that all should be accepted at face value and given equal weight without troubling to examine and assess their validity, and Holmes, possibly the greatest intellect ever to sit on the Supreme Court whether one agrees with his rulings or not, would be appalled and outraged at the suggestion.

Labeling as "political correctness" ( which term is now applied to so many divergent situations as to have become virtually meaningless except as a right-wing buzz-word term of opprobrium for anything involving the exercise of intellect)- the attempt to assess the validity of differing historical assertions / points of view is disingenuous- and intellectually sloppy.