As to why disparity? And you are quite correct in pointing that out. The reasons are clearly multifactorial and racism is just a tiny element. The socio economic problems of poor black America will be exactly the same as today after all statues, monuments, Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are erased from history.
The way to attack the inequality of income is to create programs that teach the poor how to copy the habits of other minorities that have massive success in America. This teaching would be given not only to poor blacks, but also to poor whites.
You're *still* attached to the idea that capitalist economics reflect a kind of *meritocracy* -- like UM, incidentally -- and that those who 'work hard' are 'most deserving' of wealth, or health, or 'success', etc.
I'll use the same argument with you as I did with UM -- consider someone who has *millions of dollars*. If they simply leave those millions in a savings account at the bank, at 1% interest, those millions will receive *tens of thousands of dollars* in interest every year, and the owner will not have had to do a *single thing*, in terms of personal *work* efforts.
So the inequality of income begets a *further* inequality of income, based on *wealth ownership* alone. Your pretendings towards some kind of rustic hard-work moralism as the basis for success are *misguided*, at best, and I'm being *generous* towards your stated position.
Slavery is not to be ignored. However, is not supposed to be the vehicle to embrace victimhood. I would spend massive amounts of cash into teaching the poor how to be successful without preaching victimhood.
Would you likewise 'teach' Native Americans how to be successful, so that you can ignore the real history of *genocide* by the U.S. government against all native tribes in North America?
Why don't we just indict the social entity that's *responsible* for the genocide, slavery, and racism that continues to this day, the U.S. government (and all Western bourgeois governments)? Why are you trying to *avoid* this historical fact?
Racism is always wrong. However, we are attacking the problem incorrectly. For racism to exist we need two conditions. The oppressor must feel superior and the oppressed must feel inferior. That is why embracing the noble victim status is so devastating. America does not need minorities that are walking around as victims 24/7. IN my opinion that promotes racism. Calling a white man a supremacist promotes racism. They are certainly not the supreme race.
Why are you *individualizing* a factor that's actually *governmental* in scale, and what does anyone's 'feelings' have to do with this history? Why shouldn't we just simply directly address the *social history* that *caused* genocide, slavery, and (institutional) racism?
I think you have a *fetish* for capitalist markets, and you see that mechanism as somehow being *inviolate* and *infallible*, as though markets could somehow wipe-the-historical-slate-clean-with-its-purported-purity.
Can't you just accept that Western colonialism has been exceedingly *ugly* and barbaric against indigenous populations?