Young children are fully aware that skin color is irrelevant to their value as a human, so learning that whiteness was used to justify genocide and political hierarchy in this country will be surprising to them. They will want to change that reality. That's exactly what we need.

Black-/indigenous-children of color don't have the luxury of avoiding this subject. As soon as they're old enough to leave the house by themselves, they have to learn a special code of conduct for their own safety around white people. Emmitt Till would be just 80 years old today if he wasn't brutally murdered -- the same age as grandparents of young children in school today. These stories are passed down through direct lived experience -- I would suggest you read "Just Mercy" or "The Green Book" to get a sense of what the proponents of CRT are fighting against.

The goal of this new education for young, white children is to disavow the archaic definition of whiteness. The old definition of whiteness is 'superiority by virtue of skin color' -- we don't need that definition anymore.

Whiteness only exists to otherize different races.

The division already exists -- it's exactly what CRT seeks to remedy.

To answer your question: My impression of how a young child will engage with this corrected curriculum is they will develop a more accurate worldview earlier in their lives, and spare themselves the struggle of unlearning the flawed history that they were forced to learn to make their white policymakers more comfortable.

--

The Dem party today is definitely too spineless to mount a defense of CRT to reclaim voters on the left. They're trying to play both sides to appeal to those swing voters, but they're alienating the true left & losing the centrists at the same time.

But that's nothing to do with the merit of CRT, and everything to do with the impotence of the Democratic party rn