I'm going to try and answer your questions as best I can, because I think arguments to the contrary are worth making sometimes :o)

- Most whites didn't see a problem with enslavement or segregation is fair. Most Nazis didn't see the problem with persecuting the jews... but being white is an immutable condition, being a Nazi is a choice. The comparison here is between 'whites' and 'germans' - not between whites and Nazis. So yes, I think teachers can call bullshit on specific white people (but not white people as a whole) from several generations ago.

- You're creating a binary on the issue of slavery and the holocaust. It is either evil or it is good. This is too simplistic an argument on both counts - the intentions of both could be argued to be evil in naturel, but positive eventualities percolated through. Without the Holocaust there would likely be no Israel, without slavery there would be no United States. You can argue that both of those countries are 'good' even if they sprang directly from something evil.

I think we can carve out a space for people caught up in events and societal pressures beyond their control. You have complicated people like Oskar Schindler, Erwin Rommel and Schtauffenberg to account for. All prominent Nazis - all throwing the binary narrative out somewhat. I think good people can do bad things, I think bad people can do good things. I think people are people - and understanding the complexities of people should be what's taught. If the rise of Nazism is taught in the context of reparations for WWI, you begin to get an understanding that perhaps the 1920s were just an interval between two wars, with the Allies creating the pre-conditions for Nazism to spring up. Again, complexity.

Students complaining about psychological distress on account of their individual race should be told 'so what?' - history is history, feelpinions shouldn't derail education.

I think the founding fathers deviated from an otherwise noble founding as default. I don't think they really considered enslaved people to be people. I don't think that's necessarily an act of fraud or hypocrisy - I think it just was the way they thought. In 1790 - a few things in the world had changed... one of them being the French revolution, this was terrifying across the world because it upset the entire economic order and the French had nailed the Tricolore to the door and said they were against slavery. This was outsourced to Haiti in 1789 on the doorstep of the United States. I think that likely prompted a bit of a panic within the nascent state concerned it would likely fall before it got going. I think there's an argument to be made that the Naturalisation Act of 1790 is an attempt to codify a class system (one that was already racist by economic design) rather than act of deliberate White Supremacy which suggests some conceptualisation I don't think they had..

Racism was baked in from the start, but I'd argue was a byproduct of the economic needs of the country. One that developed into something awful. However, before we get all caught up on this - we need to remember that slavery hasn't finished. In countries that lack education and the rule of law, poor societal structure can create an environment that fosters the acceptance and propagation of slavery. Slavery is most prevalent in impoverished countries and those with vulnerable minority communities, though it also exists in developed countries. Tens of thousands toil in slave-like conditions in industries such as mining, farming, and factories, producing goods for domestic consumption or export to more prosperous nations.

America has simply outsourced its slavery to other nations. The USA, and all the people within it, remain embedded in a system of economic slavery in which they are the masters and countries elsewhere in the world are slaves. Ironically, the economic powerhouse of the US (partly created by slavery) has allowed citizenship to be extended to everyone within its borders at the expense of the people outside. This isn't white supremacy this is economic supremacy. If we are against slavery (and we are) then such a thing needs to be an economic argument and not an identity one.

This was fun. I enjoyed the argument. Though I should confess, I'm not entirely wedded to my argument. It was simply a fun exercise to find the gaps and see what I could do. Devils advocate and all that.