off-subject slightly...but how can american history be taught w/o ratting out all the bad american history?

crt isn't much different than this...
https://www.thoughtco.com/meyer-v-nebraska-1923-4034984
...lead by hatred against americans w/german names

even pride in great americans can lead to some dark truths...
https://www.militarytimes.com/video/2017/02/17/eugene-bullard-the-black-swallow-of-death/
...that's someone whose life was worth a chapter in a h.s. history books itself.

all of it !?

how different can american history be that much different than today's news?! a lot of todays' spectacles are hard to behold.

it's all on a scale. bad w/the good. why be afraid?

Please don’t spread the rebranding, intentional bastardization of a 40 year old well known legal analysis class to create a scapegoat, a faux boogeyman for the right to be outraged over.
CRT is not what the Right has falsely branded it, and it’s blatantly obvious they needed to create a racist scapegoat because their old buzzwords like Political Correctness weren’t being taken seriously or sparking outrage anymore.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

It’s just more bullshit, don’t step in it

well...don't see categorizing dung, in the crap column, as spreading the right's meadow muffins. thought it was showing the bigotry, xenophobia, phantom fears that have been an American past time. (also have these ever left the rights' playbook?)

of course, it's boogie-boogie-all-night-long for the right. just tried putting it in the context of other hairy scary nothings that have been hawked - - then and now.

[should have put in a better link for the Nebraska case. the writing of the SCOTUS' decision is enlightening. almost apologetic.]

Sorry if I’m being over sensitive….anything that seems to legitimize the bastardized definition of CRT, in my eyes, is buying into the intentional political ruse to paint any anti racism program, plan, or organization, even unpleasant history with the “CRT” label (and everyone knows CRT is the Devil), and I find that upsetting, even when it’s unintentional….maybe more so when it’s unintentional because that means the rebranding and improper conflation is working.

I think you know, CRT is an advanced law class taken by law students, not a racist movement to erase white people from history as the right claims, not a diabolical plan to make all white children self hating BLM activists, and it really irks me how successful the publicly admitted, intentional, blatantly racist scapegoating and misrepresentation has worked.

It seemed you were accepting the right wing definition even as you dismissed the (I assume anti) “CRT” movement by comparing it to unconstitutional anti German/foreign language laws in the past. Apologies if I misunderstood or came across as accusatory.