It's hard to beat Katherine Kersten for flaky claims ("Activists commandeer Historical Society," Opinion Exchange, June 25).

She seems to be a sudden expert on native languages and their spelling and pronunciation: "The correct Mdewakanton Dakota name for the [Fort Snelling-area] site is 'Mdote,' meaning 'confluence of rivers,' not 'Bdote.'" If you say so.

She's certain the Dakota people were mere arrivistes, showing up hereabout only around 1700 to make war on the resident Iowans and Otoes, and dismissing claims of sacredness made by "contemporary, undocumented Dakota 'oral tradition.'" As if oral history is somehow illegitimate, when every oral transmission of history is, by definition, both "contemporary" and "documentation."

A trip to the Jeffers Petroglyphs would remind her that Siouan language speakers mixed freely across the Great Plains for the past 7,000 years, according to the Minnesota Historical Society website:

"We know from oral histories, historical records, and archaeology, that the area was inhabited and visited by several tribal nations … recognizing the sacredness of the area. The Ioway, Otoe, Cheyenne, and the Dakota are a few nations who respected the region and consider it home and important to their tribal histories."

Please spare us any more of Kersten's ignorance.

William Beyer, St. Louis Park

Katherine Kersten gives consistency we can count on. She is the Phyllis Schlafly of our moment with her resisting uncovering dominator-culture narratives.

Nice to see the paleoconservative backward glance to celebrate that actually we're making progress.

Barbara Vaile, Northfield, Minn.

In light of the recent brouhaha regarding critical race theory (CRT), what it really means, and how it is being, should be, and should not be applied and approached, it might help to understand that CRT is becoming to this era what affirmative action was 15 to 20 years ago. In both cases, the way they are often carried out has in many ways strayed far beyond the original definitions of the terms.

Both of these concepts are very necessary as originally envisioned but have become harmful in the forms they often currently take. CRT was not initially intended to demonize white people — it was intended to be simply a study of the varieties of ways race can inform various aspects of our lives. But the way at least some schools are teaching racial matters now has come to involve an overarching narrative that all white people are inherently racist or at the very least inherently oppressors, and by definition anyone who is Black is inherently oppressed. There is certainly more to CRT than this, and it's a problem when those objecting to the specific teachings I reference above (along with monstrosities like the "1619 Project," which isn't CRT at all — just a naked distortion of history) end up grouping all of that under the convenient umbrella of critical race theory. They need to be much more specific as to what they're objecting to.

We all know that these original ideas have not entirely been followed, and it's very important that we do a better job of keeping critical race theory to its conceived definition and application than we previously did with affirmative action.

Alexander Adams-Leytes, Minneapolis

•••

A lot of the hubbub about the critical race theory could be information or it could be disinformation. A few critical questions:

Sure would love to see an organized debate about critical race theory rather than the overblown hyperbole we are seeing now.

I was pleased to read past coverage regarding efforts on a bipartisan infrastructure structure ("Biden, senators settle on $973B bill," front page, June 25, "A bipartisan push for U.S. infrastructure," editorial, June 17). I have major concerns, however, that this deal will only address traditional "infrastructure," i.e., roads, bridges, airports, etc. There is no question we have long neglected investing in these resources, but now there is an urgent need to invest for the future. The climate crisis is causing extreme weather events like heat waves, wildfires, floods and polar vortex events that damage our environment and the aging infrastructure.

The U.S. must work with the international community to deal with this existential crisis and prepare for our future on this planet. We must build infrastructure for resilience and to compete with other countries for technology and jobs in a net-zero emissions economy of the future. We must pass a bill that includes bold investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and clean transportation.

As a member of a faith community in Woodbury, we are addressing these issues by installing solar panels, retrofitting LED lighting and improving efficiency. We do this work not because it makes us feel good. We are stewards and responsible for the care of the environment. We also believe climate justice is needed for those least responsible for the crisis who suffer the most if we do not prepare now for the future.

Wallace Wadd, Woodbury

•••

Jim Wandell, North Oaks

•••

Reporting on a national infrastructure plan often cites large numbers like Biden's proposed $1.2 trillion without saying that the number is a projection over eight years. To report military spending the same way, the headline would be "Biden proposes $6 trillion for defense; Republicans say it's not enough." U.S. military spending is higher than that of all our major rivals combined. As for infrastructure, China has built 23,000 miles of high-speed electric railroads, while here the Empire Builder trundles to Chicago on a schedule slower than that of the World War II era.

And when did Congress ever stick to any fiscal discipline over eight years?

James Haefemeyer, Minneapolis