Did you forget to put your philosopher's hat on? You honestly can't think of any (https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873) other (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/agg/blindspot/indexrk.htm) approaches (https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2380&context=bclr) that might shed some light (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-more-voters-acknowledge-symptoms-racism-disagree-about-its-causes-n1234363) on the issue (https://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Power-Difference-Allan-Johnson/dp/0073404225)? You've searched the entire epistemological bag of tricks and come up with "first person accounts from members of the identity group" and that's it?

And you don't think that issues of morality--the tension between consequentialism and virtue ethics for instance--are relevant to racial issues? Not to mention epistemology (especially the distinction between lived experience and objective reality)?

Let me remind you that your discussions of abortion were not framed as merely literary criticism! You could have done that one as only literary criticism too. Why the different approaches?

Also, if you are restricting yourself to literary criticism, I'm perplexed that you think it's fair to completely dismiss Candace Owens (what about Thomas Sowell?) because she might give a slanted account due to what she thinks her target audience wants to hear, but not worry that, say, Laura M. Quainoo (not to single her out--she's just first on your list) might do the same thing with a different target audience? Don't mistake me--I find that Quainoo writes a lot of really insightful material, and quite often read something she wrote and go, "wow, that's a really good point" (even if I disagree!)...but if we're worrying about target-audience effects, don't we have to suspect everyone?

You, too, write a lot of insightful stuff, but...something went wrong here.