Very well said! This is one of the clearest and most thoughtful pieces I've ever read on the topic (and I've read quite a few).

I do wonder, though, how representative your experiences are of all students' in the U.K.? In the United States I know that there is quite a massive diversity, ranging from history that barely even acknowledges slavery or how cruel it was (and slavery was a lot worse than being a colony of Imperial Britain); to extensively "centering race" while talking about (some parts of) history so you are forced to constantly think of wrongdoers not merely as powerful people who abused their privilege, but first and foremost as white, thereby associating white=evil, white=evil, over and over; and with only scant attention to anything positive. In short: you can go through education in the U.S. and have an even more whitewashed history than you describe; or you can also have an experience that emphasizes all the (usually justified) bitterness without much effort at balance or optimism. Though the former is much more common than the latter, the latter is, I think, legitimately described as "divisive"--most students aren't (yet) exposed to it, but arguably some are.

(For instance: the much-lauded 1619 Project is extremely one-sided on cataloging harms without triumphs, making it a very valuable addition to national consciousness that has mostly avoided mentioning harms; but when used as a curriculum it is so one-sided. For instance, the 1619 Proejct almost completely ignores the existence of Frederick Douglass, who I would argue was the most masterful advocate for the abolition of slavery (in addition to being black), who was wildly influential in his time, and who, in contrast to some prominent white abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, was thoroughly optimistic about the principles that the United States was founded on. His story is incredibly inspiring--even moreso given that he, not Garrison, was proved right that the Constitution itself was a powerful ally in ending slavery--but also very inconvenient for the 1619 Project's narrative of the United States as a near-endless source of racial harms and evils. A 1619 Project-heavy curriculum is divisive not because it is false, but because it is so incomplete.)

So, could that be the case where you are also? Could some locations actually be taking a divisive approach to education while you are experiencing education that scarcely even acknowledges any past wrongdoings?

It would not change your overall message when applied to the education that you have had and are continuing to receive, but it might require more nuance when talking about policy overall.

Or it might not. The U.K. has a more uniform curriculum than does the U.S., certainly. It might just be a lot of sound and fury at a non-existent threat, while the real problem is precisely the opposite.

But how certain are you that you know?