Trump voters don’t even believe themselves

It's worth contrasting that feedback loop with, for example, how black African immigrants to the United States typically fare (even including those for whom English is not their primary language).  They out earn their American counterparts, their kids attend and graduate from college at considerably higher rates, and they often start off worse when they come to the United States than most.  Nigerian immigrants in particular thrive in the United States.   And if there were such a thing as systemic or institutional racism, you'd expect it to limit them far more.

There is also a cultural aspect to this that transcends mere skin color or race. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liberals

Sowell explains that the Black Redneck culture that migrated north was instantly and widely celebrated by the progressive left as endemic of the Black Race and used as a justification for all sorts of sinister policies.

I'm not sure I agree with everything in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, but I agree with a lot of it.  

The question relates to the starting point:  if you're black, and particularly if you're a black man, do you begin from the position of "I can't succeed in the society because of how racist the system is, therefore I'm not even going to try"?

1. Do you believe the 1619 project and BLM claims that racism has a constitutional basis [i.e., that racism is found as an element within the language of the U.S Constitution in any one or several of its Articles, or Amendments]?

2. Do you believe "systemic racism" is defined as the existence of current federal, state, or municiple legal statutes, or any government agency policy, or any private industry policy that specifically documents acceptable racial discrimination?

but don’t seem to care much about whether it is even a real thing

As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that suggest that non-congruent outcomes among particular (and largely non-representative) samples of non-majority ethnic groups have it worse than equally non-representative samples of majority ethnic groups.  

In reality, to the extent that any such differences appear in the data (and they do in certain aspects, like criminal sentencing for example); there is essentially no evidence that could even be misinterpreted to support the proposition that race (or ethnicity) explains these differences, much less causes them.  Further, once you broaden the scope of whatever you're looking at (basically no matter what it is that you're focusing on), at least before 2020 things tended to be looking better compared to, for example, criminal sentencing disparities in the 1930s-1970s.  This should be unsurprising, given that as a society racism is regarded as intolerable by basically everyone with any sense, and the cultural norms associated with discriminating based on race have shifted. 

...

I am not saying that there were never systemic issues that disproportionately adversely affected black people, if there was any question.  Three strikes laws absolutely did, drug sentencing practices relevant to crack certainly did and so called crime reform at the behest of the 1990s democrats did more damage than anything else.  But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic.  What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better.  Also, sentencing disparities increased after the 94 crime bill. 

What we are really talking about here is how inequality of outcome can be normatively explained.   So, what's the story we're telling ourselves to explain why some groups seem to succeed while other groups do not.  It's also worth considering whether the black-white duality is really the best.  Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades). 

Having now had at least a second opportunity to review what I said, do you now still hold the position that "but don’t seem to care much about whether [outcome inequity] is even a real thing?

But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic. What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better.

Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades)...

What I am saying is that those data points do not establish "white privilege" or "institutional racism."

Immediately after listing examples of black people being disproportionately affected by government policy you call it “stupid” to suggest it as evidence of systemic racism.

You sound like you acknowledge it is, but then go on to blame it on the democrats and government intervention, but neither of those are relevant to the question.

The question of systemic racism has nothing to do with who is at the top with respects to the beneficiaries of government policy, it’s about who is at the bottom.

Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?

Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in the society in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?

Actually what I said was that if the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" conspiracy theory was true, then we'd have to assume that society got vastly more racist after the Johnson administration and the end of Jim Crow --- which is completely absurd.

Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?

Yes,...

I object to even use of the language of "systemic racism" because the problem of inequitable outcome cannot be solved at that same level of analysis that it's identified

It seems to me that you think I think that inequity isn't a problem.

Since we can't build a time machine and go back to 1867 and force the Southern Culture to become more in line with Hard working and virtuous Northern Culture. 

And we also can't go back to 1997 when California embraced Ebonics as a genetic language based on skin color, discouraging people with Black skin and Southern Culture from integrating into the majority and objectively better Northern Culture as evidenced by the outcomes of the Civil War.

What would you suggest today as a means to gradually eliminate Southern Culture from people of all skin colors beyond just toppling a few statues?

How would you distribute these changes to tackle the pervasive Southern Culture ghettos entrenched in Northern urban centers and no longer confined to the geography south of the Mason-Dixon?

I do not think that eliminating any culture is an appropriate response to the challenges faced by certain groups.

the product of "cracker culture"