Thanks, @JasonHines, for this excellent, compact essay.
I have never been clear on how, except for obvious markers, one would certify this as it pertains to white supremacy: “We’re not as bad as we used to be.”
I’d argue when Black people entered this land mass in 1619, we were dominated by people classified as white, and today, over 400 years later, we are dominated by people classified as white. One could say, then, on this meta-qualifier — the one which counts the most — absolutely nothing has changed.
I think this statement — “We’re not as bad as we used to be” — rewards and sates white consciences, somewhat akin to the manner, I hypothesize, that, when someone says, at the end of a brief chat, “Those were the good old days,” they briefly get a hit of dopamine.
Stated another way, I think, in order to agree with this statement, I would need a large set of more reductive adjectives than “bad” applied and utilized; i.e., ones which lend themselves to quantification, first.
In other words, what are the ills which beset non-white people under race? Whatever they may be, what are their quantified imperatives?
E.g.:
Are Black people, per capita, more, or less, lead-filled?
Are Black people more, or less, land-endowed?
When compared to white-owned land, are those lands more or less likely to be subsident, or challenged in other quantifiable ways?
Etc., etc.
With enough of these quantifications — there could be thousands, or hundreds of thousands of them — and, subsequently, followed by a roster of qualifying adjectives — thousands, or hundreds of thousands of them — I think, then, one might start to properly discern the question of whether “we” are not as bad as we used to be.
Any other approach, to my ears — especially when it comes from people classified as white — is suspect and glib.
HA