I found this essay unpersuasive. The problems started with "in my humble, but unequivocally staunch and informed view..."? That's gibberish. There is absolutely nothing humble in Mr. Eagle's writing. Zero. Zip.

I'm not nit-picking here. The indifference to what words mean flows through the essay. Thus, Mr. Eagle writes that "it is important to 'pace onself'," but adds that "as far as many are concerned, chronic gradualism is no longer acceptable." His position on this point is not clear; he seems to be siding with the "many," but he does not declare himself one of them. If he is one of them - and the drive of this piece suggests that he is - then what, exactly does he mean by "it is important that one 'pace oneself'"? Why the scare quotes? I think Mr. Eagle means nothing by the first half of his statement, just as there is nothing "humble" about his opinions. I'm not saying Mr. Eagle's opinions should be humble, or that one must (or must not) pace oneself, just that he undermines his arguments by contradicting himself.

I respect Mr. Eagle's Vince Lombardi-ism. To be sure, "winning" is the only thing. But that goal is easy to keep fighting for if one doesn't define it. What will "justice" look like? We know what injustice looks like, and we can sympathize with those who suffer it. But what would its opposite look like? Do the Jews of American have "justice"? There is anti-Semitism here, but life is good for American Jews. Many Asians groups are prospering here, too, despite hostility and occasional violence. Would Mr. Eagle regard Blacks getting where Jewish Americans and Indian Americans are "victory?" If not, why not, and if so, how can his program be refined to get to that specific place?

Only two things will end racial injustice: intermarriage - no races, no racism - or educated, prosperous co-existence of the sort achieved by other ethnic groups. The road to prosperity is different for American Blacks. Their history is unique and the challenges they face are unique. But that doesn't change what humans justly sharing geography must look like.

I don't understand why Mr. Eagle believes that rioters create an opportunity by destroying livelihoods and places where people obtain important goods and services. The hive mind - my metaphor for predictable macro responses - doesn't negotiate with terrorists. The riots demonstrate only that the rioters don't deserve anything. Sure, some "commitments" were made, but they weren't commitments. They were the temporary, grudging, tactical sops that rioters elicit. They were not earned by the rioters (even if they may be good ideas), so they will not be honored.

Anti-racist activists seem to me "staunchly" blind to their successes and, especially, the policy implications of those successes. Too little effort is going into holding new territory. If the White man is finally letting you learn to read, then learn to read. If he is giving you scholarships, apply for them. If he is allowing you to set up banks without reprising Tulsa 1921, open banks. Black Americans are dying from CoVID because many don't trust the medical system. Yes, they have reason not to trust the system, but they have eyes, and they can see White people lining up for vaccines, too. Is a healthy community not essential to the struggle?

Blacks who can vote have a different struggle from Blacks who could not. Voter suppression and gerrymandering must be fought, but the vote must be gotten out.

In short, anti-racist generals are not special. Like many before them, they are fighting the last war. Gradualist successes reshape the battlefield. At least, that's my humble, but unshakable and, of course, irrefutable opinion.