"Criticism from historians" is normal for everything. Historians criticize work that they even revere. The presence of academic criticism is not evidence that the NYT piece is an "ahistorical, ideology first product".
In fact, the majority of criticism from the academic community (as mentioned in the article) is the fact that the historians that were consulted on this piece weren't named in the text.
In fact, the majority of criticism from the academic community (as mentioned in the article) is the fact that the historians that were consulted on this piece weren't named in the text.