This time you did restate the substance of my critique, but maybe you will also explain why you disagree and see it differently? After all, I did explain why I saw it the way I explained.

I am somewhat familiar with Racial Formation Theory. However, I am not familiar with a body of work that provides solid empirical justification for it.

Of course there's always a systems-level analysis that needs to be done regarding the aggregate effects of individual attitudes, so to the extent that RFT is just "hey, that thing we always need to do but keep forgetting? let's do it?" it should be completely uncontroversial at this point. Even in the 80s when Omi and Winant introduced it, it was kind of on the tail end of "let's look at the system too" endeavors (RAND Corporation was particularly big on these sorts of systems analyses). But as with most systems analyses, it hasn't seemed that people who like it care to try to disprove it and challenge it with alternative hypotheses. For instance, when you imply motive--this is done in order to accomplish that--it is important that you test whether motive actually has anything to do with it, and if the motive is the motive that you think.