So, I saw this newsweek article arguing that the most recent changes "water down" the depiction of racism in the US.

However, when I actually clicked through and looked at the passages in question, I found that I actually agreed with most of the changes! I was worried it would take a stance on the "primary cause" of the civil war, instead of presenting the entire context. But it seems that most of the language was, umm, historiographically good but possibly at odds with how the person evaluated the change thought history should be taught. For instance, I thought the passage noting the "emergence of racial stereotyping and the development of strict racial categories among British colonists, which contrasted with Spanish and French acceptance of racial gradations", is also a gross simplification of a fluid time of which we don't have all the textual evidence we might need. Among other things, I was under the impression that a) the more brutal slavery practices were adopted from the Caribbean, and that b) the "british" system of race was considerably less stratified than the passage sounded. Remember the weird state of the Irish in this country?

In other words, do these revisions ACTUALLY "water down" portrayal of racist america, or might they be legitimately defendable on a historiographical basis?