I'm going to respond to this because you raise some good points and because I think you're fundamentally wrong and I think there's always a significant amount of learning to be had when two intelligent and respectful people disagree.

1. No problems with this. History has been fairly one sided in the way it's written, but the presumption that the 'winners' are white people presumes that white people act as a hemogeny, which they don't. The real winners have been affluent white people and specifically those who have amassed wealth. White people who lost out often consisted of Irish Americans, Italian Americans and the working classes

2. Silence is compliance is a difficult one. It's catchy, but only becuase it's simple. I have remained relatively silent on the Israel/Palestine thing thing. This is because supporting 'free palestine' (the simple solution to a complex problem) also tacitly supports the suppression of liberal democracy and LGBTQ+ rights. I'm not complying with the Israeli approach, but neither do I have to vocalise support for a country with an elected government like Hamas. The more complicated an issue, the more people should remain silent.

3. Anti-Racism was arguably occurring across most of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. The election of Barack Obama, whilst slightly controversial, was testament to a country moving away from racism. The arrival of social media and 'everyone can have an opinion' and later 'questioning my opinion is a hate crime' has done little more than set everything back. I would argue that Western democracies were doing a good job of slowly liberalising, right up until they weren't.

4. Allyship isn't a hard concept to grasp, but only if you define allyship. When plenty of voices pull in contradictory directions then disengagement happens. That is the point of this article. Allyship to you may not mean the same as it does to other people - until there is a clarity around the term, people will not be allies because there is no way they can be. Take for example the 'black squares' debacle. Allies posted black squares in solidarity, were applauded, then were criticised, then apologised, then removed them, then apologised. The whole thing was a shit show, because the message about what constitutes 'racism' and what constitutes 'allyship' is entirely subjective.

I think some people panic about the idea of racism when POC are being nice and calm, but I don't think that's universally true. White fragility (also overused) is a term that has come to mean - this person doesn't agree with my world view.

The biases themselves are complicated, there are plenty of examples of 'othering' in which skin colour is not a factor. The rape of Nanking, the Rwandan Genocide, arguably to some extent the holocaust. The general psychological approach people have is to identify something 'other' about someone and use this identifier as signifying everything they don't like. In the US, this is often skin colour. The problem with framing the problem as 'white people' vs 'POC' is that it doesn't change the frame. In order for racism to be vanquished, the frame must be the common uniting factors of humanity. This does not inform much of the dialogue.

I believe that the current propensity of the US to lump together POC from the middle classes with POC from the lower classes and insist upon them as the oppressed will likely move the working class white to the right. That's what Trump was about. The more intense the rhetoric becomes (ie everyone white is evil incarnate) the more moderates you will lose to the right. We can call this what it is, it's racism - but that won't end it. I've written more about this here. https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/what-we-all-lose-when-society-plays-identity-politics-397dcb896d5b

Confedertate statues are coming down, Chauvin is in jail, POC and LGBTQ+ lawmakers are coming in, but a term is only 4 years long. The more the silent moderates are kicked, the more they'll move to the right.

Moderate whites are joining the fight with systemic racism, but that cannot be done by elevating the loudest and most irresponsible voices. BLM has already started to break apart at the local level, in large part becuase there's a self-confessed Marxist with a 3million pound real estate portfolio. These things will all be noted by moderates when it comes to the next vote - and the more batshit ideologies that come flying out of the mouths of activists, the more the moderates will shift right - it could be a short four years and a rapid expansion of the racist right.

And despite being a pseudo-intellectual rando, I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. I'm not from the US - and I'm a centre-left liberal (the tolerant kind, not the faux liberals that are running around at the moment) - you should see that from my socialist article above. All across the democratic west, the left is firing up the right and vice versa. Only moderates in the centre ground can really push the dialogue somewhere new - and nothing about the rage and lack of clarity from people of all skin colours is helping.