I appreciate your support.

I just highlighted some parts of your sample quotation that resonated with me, individually.

The sample passages that you've articulated are so much more substantive and intelligent than "We stole their land!" (which is what my Fifth-Grade teacher LITERALLY said to us).

The hypothetical (highlighted by me) approach you'd outlined from a hypothetical educator: it's an excellent starting-point. I support that.

For me, where it goes too far is when certain educators try to delineate the concepts of "prejudice," "bigotry," "discrimination," and "-isms" based on the inflictor's and/or the recipient's identity per se. As though it's some irrefutable fact.

The way I see the world:

Prejudice is a passive attitude accompanied by zero (or very little) demonstrative action.

Discrimination refers to actionable offenses inflicted by the perpetrator onto the victim that wouldn't have been broached BUT FOR the fact that the perpetrator is attempting to weaponize the victim's identity against them. In whatever Time/Manner/Place and whatever context.

Bigotry is, broadly speaking, an umbrella term encompassing both prejudicial beliefs and discriminatory actions.

"-isms" can be systemic, cultural, and/or social (or an overlapped of two or more of these). The systemic "-isms" are why it's so important to support movements such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo.

This is how I delineate these terms. I don't see why it should suddenly be social justice gospel that the types of philosophies I'm proposing become barred from educational settings -- while the default curriculum/doctrine would be limited exclusively to one that assumes ALL discrimination and/or "-isms" are inherently and exclusively systemic.