Thanks for the response!
Campbell does seem to have an overly negative view of R(2) — couldn’t that method be proactive by attacking power structures, not “by any means possible”, but with financial reparations? (progressive tax structures — tax the rich more; and individual reparations — pay the people who inherited lower economic status more). Truly, it is a combination of individual (R(1)) and power structure (R(2)) refiguring that needs to happen.
I wouldn’t object to this sort of solution, provided it’s framed properly and it’s constructed with rationality and efficacy in mind. I’m personally a pretty big fan of UBI, quite honestly.
I think if we focused our attention on the obvious (in my opinion) fact that wealth itself is heritable, not only in dollars but also in advantages, and we analyzed that with good, technically minded research, that we could find a way out of this rabbit hole.
My sense is that’s not being done with any real rigour right now, and not infrequently the people who attempt it fall under attack for running afoul of certain narratives.
That said, whatever definition we do choose to use for ‘racism’ needs, in my opinion, to be clear and applicable to all cases, not hodge-podged up in such a way that condemns behavior for some while exonerating it for others. Particularly based on their birth characteristics. Failing that, every discussion about racism must start with a definition statement, or the dialogue is doomed to fail.