If that is true - then is the answer really villainising every white poor American and pushing them further to the right. Wouldn't you be better off concentrating on socially inclusive programmes that offer advantages to black kids and white kids because both are poor. Teaching them both, in the process, that they have more in common with each other than with rich white folks.

Of course views are influenced by your race and gender, and your lived experience, and your height, and your mood, and your experience of everyone else in society. That's a given. But you can consistently create more and more meaningless arbitrary categories in which to place people. What do you do with jewish people? What do you do with mixed race people? There are genuine disadvantages that come with being short. There are genuine disadvantages that come with having a childhood trauma. When you try and codify what counts as privilege and disadvantage, it quickly turns into a meaningless bun fight.

To combat that, I don't pull punches with white folks, black folks, trans folks, or women - if I think they're wrong because there's a flaw in their argument, I'll tell them and argue the point. That's what equality means in my eyes. Nobody said being inclusive meant being nice. Disagreement is not oppression. It's led to some very interesting discussions that have opened my eyes to the complexities of American politics. I don't fundamentally agree with writers like Jeremy Helligar and Jeannette Espinoza, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to and reading.