What side of history are we on?

The Texas legislature is getting involved in how we teach history. It recently passed a bill aimed at banning something called "critical race theory."

"The bill requires teachers who talk about race relations and how they shaped history to look at viewpoints 'from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective.' " [Source]

That sounds good on paper, but how would that work in practice?

For example, the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa race massacre is coming up on May 31st. What are the "diverse and contending perspectives" on that? That it was justified? That the perpetrators had good reasons for doing what they did? [Source]

Or -- since this is Texas -- how should teachers discuss the 1918 Porvenir massacre with students in El Paso? Should the perspectives of the "Texas Rangers, U.S. Cavalry soldiers, and local ranchers [who] killed 15 unarmed Mexican American boys and men" carry equal weight as those of the victims and their descendants? [Source]

When someone commits a crime, the offender wants you to say "well, both sides are to blame," or "well, there's nothing that can be done now" or "well, there's no use crying over spilled milk." The victims want justice. Do both sides merit equal consideration?

Conservatives like William Buckley, Jr. used to rail against moral equivalence and the notion that all perspectives carry equal weight. It's a shame that modern conservatives are embracing the very concept they spent decades fighting against. [Source]