This, but apply it equally. I have worked in a few businesses where very affluent wealthy white people have been 'the boss' and they have been 'the boss' not becuase of their insight, but because of their inherited financial situation. It may be different in the US, but over in the UK - there is very much a connection of people (mostly white) who give each other opportunities and money based entirely on who they know and in that way they manipulate the job and economy market. Some of them aren't particularly good at their jobs either but face very little in the way of consequence. One such example is our current Prime Minister.
If you have a meritocracy, it must be that - and that means simultaneously addressing the over-representation of people who 'fail up' - I'm looking at the entirety of the British landed gentry here as well as various members of the US political system and beyond. If you're going to promote equity, it must be that - and to argue that the US has had an equitable position on race, gender and other things isn't a fair position to take. It presumes that the playing field is currently level - which it isn't.
To have a fairer system, where it is the quality of a person that determines their eventual place in society, two things must happen. Undeserving folk sitting on inherited or wink-wink-nod-nod posititons must be removed when it can be demonstraed they are incompetent then the best candidate available should replace them. That person's skin colour, wealth, sex, or any other characteristic shouldn't form part of the decision making.
That isn't to say the way it's being done is right. You know my views on cack-handed left-ist approaches - it's just you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one. If you work for a large global consulting firm then the question you need to ask is 'how does a young black man who grew up in detroit get to have my job?'. If you conclude he can't because he's lazy and he's stupid because he's black - you're racist. There's no statistical link between work ethic and skin colour that I'm aware of.
If you conclude he might not have had the same level of opportunity as you and life might be stacked against him in many ways and thus he might not make it - you'd likely be closer to the truth. That isn't to say that you don't deserve a place at a large global consulting firm or that you haven't worked hard, you likely have.... but certain options may or may not have presented themselves according to who you are.
The same might also be true of you looking at someone like Trump.... with all the best will in the world you might not be able to become a millionaire. Why not? You didn't get a start-up loan of a million pounds from your dad and inherit an existing property business. Same principle, skin colour removed. There are certain doors that might remain shut to you. (btw have no idea what your actual wealth level is - I'm speaking hypothetically under the assumption you aren't a millionaire).
These thoughts recognise that there is sometimes an uneven playing field from the outset of the competition. The question remains how do you overcome such a thing? We agree on something. Knee jerk activism and rioting solves nothing, it makes the problems a lot worse.... but the status quo isn't a meritocracy either. We have an impasse. I have an answer and you won't like it.
Socialism.
Taking money from the very wealthy in graded tax brackets and using it to fund areas of deprivation elsewhere. Introducing schemes to help people who are struggling and in genuine need. People who work hard but who find the doors they need opened are currently closed. People who could genuinely innovate and create wealth for other citizens. Socialism is race blind, it helps the needy not any given racial group - enacting elements of socialism (such as universal health care) would therefore encourage the emergence of a meritocracy, reduce the riots and chaos and create a society based on personal merit and nothing else - something you and I agree on.
