This is a very Kendian perspective. I guess I would say, it depends. And it also depends on how you're defining racism (Kendi describes it as any policy that doesn't prevent racial disparity, which I think is an insane definition).

Yes, the Bell Curve takes the many factors that lead to racial disparities and tries to flatten them all out into, "racial disparities are inevitable because black people are inherently less intelligent and more prone to criminality." Charles Murray has stated explicitly that he's motivated to disprove the notion that America is a racist country. So he's quite happy to push a narrative that says, "racial disparities are inevitable due to black people's fundamental nature."

This allows him to avoid all discussion of the many, many ways black people have been racially discriminated against in America. And the impact of that discrimination.

So I'm still confused about what you think would be gained if black people "accepted" Murray's findings. Some white people think black people have lower IQs. You suggest that black people accept this belief, ignoring all the issues I raised in my article. And then, what, exactly?

Your argument just sounds breathtakingly racist. And don't get me wrong, I'm not mad. I find racism of this sort more amusing than anything else. I'm just wondering if you can explain it in a way where I can at least kind of understand the point you're making.

Are you saying that a black person (excuse me, a "black") who can't be fixed should be held in a prison with more "freedom and care," perhaps a farm of some kind. But a white who can be fixed should be held in prison? And by doing this we'd even out the demographics of the prison population?