This is still too vague to tell me anything one way or the other. Lots of clever insults but no content. Do you have any idea what’s actually in these courses? I don’t, because liberals defending them say in vague generalities that we should be teaching about slavery, and the conservatives attacking them either make opposite vague generalities, and/or are sources with a known history of lying. I’d like to know what’s really in these courses. It looks to me like neither of us do. You can’t teach history without some sort of meta-narrative. Otherwise it’s just a random collection of facts. The metanarrative I was taught in elementary school was that America was the birthplace of democracy and freedom, and the first step towards the abolition of monarchy and the belief that people should govern themselves. I think there’s some truth to that, but it also leaves an awful lot of important stuff out. I was very interested in American history when I was a kid, and I even did a lot of outside reading on the subject. But the resources I could find said almost nothing about the horrors of slavery, and I resent the fact that I was lied to. I don’t want us to lie to the next generation in the same way.

In high school, I had a terrific history teacher who insisted that we find sources outside of the assigned ones, so we didn’t think that “history is the story of the good guys versus bad guys”. I think he would’ve approved of including CRT as one of those sources.