Caveat: My experience is in teaching Western Civilization to a student population that was predominantly white and protestant. The population was perhaps 5% black, 3% Asian, and 2% Hispanic based on my estimations.

Due to this ethnic make-up, my primary focus was to protect my minority students from having to present the different perspective on "racially charged bits of" history themselves. A few were comfortable doing so, but I always wanted them to know that I 1) would not shy from challenging the majority thinking on racially charged issues and 2) would NEVER accept arguments based on race or cultural racism.

Sometimes this meant that we departed from the normally open manner in which I conducted my class. For example, during my lesson on the Holocaust, I don't allow questions that challenge the facts of the Holocaust (the what happened). Students may ask privately, put a question anonymously in a question box, or email me; however, I only accept in class questions which accept the historical veracity of the Holocaust. In an American history class, this might apply to lectures on Jim Crow and Lynching.

Finally, I believe that telling the history from the perspective of X minority is helpful. So in early America, it would be, to use Richter's phrase, "facing east from Indian country." By doing this, you are giving voice to the very people who were marginalized, connecting the history to the minority student and helping them see how it is their own, and you are humanizing the victims of oppression, rather than having them play the role of dehumanized victims.