Yeah, as I feared, this is semantics. Look J, we're going to have to establish a certain degree of good faith here. If I'm constantly having to choose every word so there's no possibility of you twisting it to mean something else, this conversation, which is already a tangent to the main point, simply isn't worth participating in for me.

I'm not a racism denailist (obviously). I'm not arguing that black people as a demographic weren't oppressed during slavery and segregation (obviously). I'm not saying that black people don't still face racism to varying degrees today (obviously).

If these aren't obvious to you, from having spoken to me thus far and read my writing, I'm honestly not interested in doing the work required to convince you.

Describing black people, as a whole, as an oppressed group, gives an inaccurate picture of the conditions that black people, as a whole, face today. It’s not about black faces in high places, it’s that there were formal, legal barriers to success for black people that don’t exist today. It’s about the fact that it’s fair to say today that a black person can become anything they want to become.

This was not fair to say 60 years ago.

Anyway, this entire question feels like a purity test and I'm not trying to prove myself to you. If you think I don't understand that racism impacts black people, even though I am a black person, go for it. As I said, I don't even see what this has to do with the topic we were discussing.