I've always found it beneficial when reading articles like this to also read one from an author with the opposing view. Can anyone think of one?
This is an article saying that racism is systematically present in America, and that many white people refuse to acknowledge this. I don't disagree, but it's best when reading essays to also read essays from the opposing side, so someone saying that systematic racism does not exist in America, or that white Americans do not currently benefit from it. If there isn't an opposing viewpoint, then why spend time reading the essay? And if you don't read the opposing view then you're missing out on half of the discussion.
So you want to be given an article that argues that the US is either post-racist or was never racist to begin with? There is no such article that I could in good conscience recommend, as such an article would be blatantly erasing the experiences of so many disenfranchised people.
Not really an opposing view but this article details the direction the country has been moving in. America has one thing that many other countries don't, we talk about racism, how to prevent and improve the lives of minorities. Many people around the world think that racism is an american thing, while sweeping their problems under the rug.
It is most certainly true that we do like to talk about racism - that is definitely our strength in a sense. I'd probably argue that most Western countries do have quite a bit of racism systematically ingrained in their societies, but few of them like to talk about it. Hell, most of the time discourse there tends to boil down to arguments that there isn't -actually- that much racism at all and it's just people complaining about nothing. It really is an infuriating statement.