The entire article also constantly uses lines like "scam", "the whites were told" or "they said" while never actually defining who this anonymous and all-powerful they is. The argument that race is a social construct isn't wrong, but the author then uses imprecise definition of actors to treat it as all a big scam perpetrated by a homogenous Marxian ruling class.

It's not so much factually inaccurate as just so simplistic in its analysis as to be useless towards any kind of real understanding.

If you want a more point-by-point analysis I would recommend posting it to /badhistory, who tend to relish that sort of task.

The reason you were probably down voted is this is clearly a very ideologically driven piece. When someone starts a study of history looking for things that support their conclusion, rather than trying to find a conclusion in history itself, it is bad history, period.

I'm not an expert on the slave trade or race relations, and even I can see some serious inaccuracies, exaggerations, and tunnel vision on the part of the author. I sincerely doubt someone who is an expert in those things is going to waste their time. The rediculousness of the author is actually pretty apparent with two select quotes:

From Part One:

"Contained in the struggle between black liberation and white supremacy is almost every issue that concerns us currently —"

This is how they open this essay series, and it automatically is a red flag as to how they are going to approach it. There exist historical narratives that fit under a certain 'lens', but when they take it to the extreme of trying to distill and attribute complex issues down to very narrow causal factors, they inevitably reveal that they have taken it too far.

From Part Two:

"When I think, “why don’t I have a jet car and live in Alpha Centuri by now?” I think this is because the people that would have invented sky cars and interstellar travel were born black in Detroit, or in rural India or in the medina in Algiers in the 1950s, and spent too much time figuring out how to eat and not get killed to invent my damned skycar."

This is the same tired narrative that militant atheists use to describe the Catholic Church of the medieval period. It's as ridiculous here as it is there.

There's an awful lot at that link, and I don't have time to go through all of it. But I hope a few suggestions for sources will be helpful to you anyway.

David Roediger's How Race Survived US History is readable and (like the article you linked) aims at a sweeping history of race and whiteness in the US.

Cheryl Harris' article "Whiteness as Property" is also a broadly-focused piece, and one that's inspired a lot of conversation. You'd need to have access to the Harvard Law Review and a willingness to push through some technical language, but it's worth it.

Harris, Cheryl I. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106, no. 8 (1993).

I hope that helps.

It seems far too US-centric to be useful as an analysis of race. Even when it acknowledges that concepts of whiteness were not restricted simply to the USA it brings it back to Virginia. <simplistic> and <agenda> flags strongly triggered.