Wow, your whole family came over at once in 1640. They didn’t leave anyone behind? That is exceptional that no one came later too. It is 400 years of inbreeding. The inherent racism of that statement is very similar to what I recently said as a white male: My great-great-great grandfather was governor of Louisiana. That could be true, if my sister did her heritage and ancestry homework right, actually driving through Louisiana and digging through files 15 years ago (we were born and raised in the north).

But to think all my other grandparents came over in the late 1700s is just bunk. One person maybe came over, but all? This is one kind of way *inherent* systemic racism works, almost like a bragging. It is a way to say to blacks: “I’m original, my ancestors were “original” founders, aristocracy.” Although you sound like you have a more nuanced view of the rise and fall of wealth in your personal family history, as do I, it still is a display to black Americans of superiority, whose opportunities to have a rise and fall of wealth were taken away and routinely repressed by whites. So, it seems to be what you actually are not trying to do, are doing—dispel racism—hence the the use of the word systemic which is something unconsciously built in, as opposed to personal racism which is conscious stated (I’m guilty of this ancestry boasting, too as I’ve said.)

But it is a form of bragging (perhaps unintentionally on your behalf) that does show systemic racist insensitivity: “Look, my white ancestors came here very early and originally did all the work and belong here. I can trace them back, and like tracing the title to a car or house, it shows I have a right to be here through my ownership tracing.” It is a shorthand for proof. But you (and I) are also unconsciously saying to black American descendants of slaves what they might hear: “You didn’t come over here of your own free will. We brought you here (in chains). You can’t trace your title back and your right to ownership back. You don’t have the same rights to be here.” Etc., etc.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to trace your ancestry back, but it is clear that black Americans can’t do the same because they were in chains, they were titled like a car or house was, forcibly ripped from their homeland and religions and their ancestry against their will, and then we white Americans erased their ancestry when they got here.

Also, you need to take class structure and divide by race statistics to see systemic racism. Just talking about some grand Unitarian class actually throws a blanket over the race issue in America. A couple examples: all police arrests for crack cocaine in the late 80s and 90s were black Americans. None were white. None, despite that fact that usage by race was the same. That is called racial targeting, not class targeting. Another example, looking only at American class equivalence, is the black Americans get suspended or get detention from school at *five times* the rate of whites. Drug arrests, prison sentences, job rejection — all higher rates when looking at the same class.

It’s a white privilege in argument structure to avoid evidence— the reality of statistics. Modern law erases mention of race, but modern statistics do not. White law starting in 1890 in the “Mississippi Plan” erased mention of race in creating voting standards in their constitution. It was challenged in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme (all-white male) Court overwhelming took the side of Mississippi, that since the state constitution didn’t mention race, they could “screen out” other non-racial “attributes” during voting registration, like ability to read and pay a poll tax. After the Court’s ruling, one by one the Southern states added these “non-racial” qualifications to their constitution until all included it until 1908. As a result of putting these voter registration “tests” in the state constitutions, the hardest place to legally challenge since it has involved “state’s rights,” is that by 1960 only one percent of black Americans were registered to vote in Mississippi and around 3 percent in other states—a place where 54 percent of blacks lived in America and could not vote.

So class was not the issue. The gaslighting statistic we endure is that JFK got 70 percent of the “black vote.” But in a country where systemically wiping out 54 percent of black Americans ability to vote (though they retained the right since the amendments). But 70 of what? A vast minority of blacks were registered to vote. JFK did get millions more of white supremacist votes in the South than black votes. So race was the issue: that white race systemically erased poor blacks from voting over that 70 year period.

I’ll start to be more sensitive to my spontaneous white “humble-bragging”: Oh, my white ancestors ruled Louisiana in 1850. (While yours were enslaved.) I hope you will too. There is more to class than money.