No. That validates that part of your argument. That's how arguments work. I simply wasn't disputing that part.

I've supported my contention plenty well that your material lacks intellectual integrity in several places. The claim above continues to display the trait.

You can highlight the forgotten parts of history--which I love, which is why I bothered reading your article in the first place--without writing revisionist history where you pick and choose things to make a simple opposite point to an oversimplified narrative instead of revealing the complexity.

That some of the U.S.'s actions were motivated by racism at various points in history--but aren't widely known to be--does not give you a license to impute simple racism as the cause for other actions where the factors are known to be complex and multifaceted.

That the U.S. has been wrong to abuse its power does not in any way relieve you from your obligation to your fellow humans to be truthful and to avoid the types of inaccurate attitudes that tend to lead to atrocities.

It's not a contest. It all matters.