Of course, it's important to challenge any orthodoxy when it comes to the telling of history.

History is culture.

So how about challenging the current orthodoxy that any "white' criticism of any history that deals with race, sophomorically and automatically denotes all white people as villains. Or that doing so displays a level of ignorance of privilege and fragility.

What, a request for dialogue or demand for context shows fragility?

That reason has colour?

As a counter balance, I'd like to see continual mention of the estimated 60,000 white people who attended MLK's March of Freedom in 1963.

I'd like to see mention of all the white Quakers and other white folk who fought slavery. Who offered up 'safe houses' in dangerous territory on the underground railway.

I'd like to see mention made of Arminianism, a 19th Century religiously inspired New England abolitionist movement to 'free all of God's creatures'.

I'd like to see mention made of Viola Liuzzo, the only white woman who died while transporting protesters for the march on Selma: she was shot to death in her car on March 25, 1965.

Or how about white Pastor James Joseph Reeb? He too was murdered in 1965 for his support of Selma and the Civil Rights Movement.

IOW, since white people are 60-62% of the US population, it would be counter-intuitive to brand them all as outright or potential racists, forgetting the fact that many many white people helped to start to put an end to racism (of course it still needs to be combatted)...but it could not have happened if white people had not voted in politicians who made it so.

What's next?

Shaming and blaming more and more white people, herding them into the demagogic arms of a flim flam man, who very may well run again for President in 2024?

Or even worse, tell Elementary school aged children that the colour of their skin denotes their inherent racism?

Or that the sins of their white ancestors are somehow still a stain on their collective souls?

That's called child abuse in the name of virtue signalling.