> I'm not sure where you even argued this
First sentence of my earlier post: 'Liberals have been talking about this long before the words “woke” or “CRT” fell upon conservative ears.'
> CRT is not taught in any public schools. It's grad school level. CRT mania is, again, conservative propaganda.
CRT inspires a lot of public school education. There's clearly a lot of ideas that orbit CRT, and people use "CRT" as a shorthand to talk about them even though they aren't exactly part of the narrowest-definition of CRT. Conservatives often badly articulate and misunderstand these ideas and the ways they're problematic, and they pick problematic solutions for countering them (speech codes); however, criticizing CRT and related ideas isn't "conservative propaganda". For the third time now, liberals were criticizing this stuff long before conservatives knew what was happening.
> If you want anecdote, I have two kids in big city public schools and they have read Stamped and done anti-racist lessons and Ibram Kendi did a talk for us. Believe it or not, they learned the right lessons. No one was insulted or made to feel bad about themselves at all.
You claimed that no schools are teaching white guilt. You can't support that with an anecdote about a school that didn't teach white guilt. To be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that every single school teaches white guilt all the time (not even the zaniest conservatives are making this argument).
> Conservatives are framing this kind of education not just as ineffective, but a grave and dire threat to America.
Why are you fixating on conservatives when neither of us are conservatives?
> Most liberals had never even heard of this kind of thing until conservatives started screaming about it.
Of course. Most liberals are normies who aren't paying close attention (same with most conservatives). But among the folks who were paying attention, loads of liberals were talking about this long before it entered the conservative mainstream. Folks like Jonathan Haidt have been examining this stuff since at least 2011.
> WSWS is also just not credible. I doubt any policy makers of any stripe trust what they print.
How can I take you seriously when you say that a professional historian, author, and emerita professor of history at Texas State University is "not credible" and when you refer to her as "a policy maker"? Come on. Moreover, I offered the WSWS version because your entire argument hinges on "only conservatives criticize 1619" and this is an example of socialists (pretty far removed from conservatives) objecting to 1619's pseudo-history.