Sorry I was doing a bit. I'm not challenging your views because that seems boring, but I am making fun a little.

My point is that stating it is private property, as if that disproves anything, is very funny because it is ironic. It demonstrates the ideological preference for private property over some kind of state-run incorporation, an ideological preference expressed by many people who own no land, nor political influence. Its your happy place where you go while being fucked by the system.

If I'm going to challenge your views, I would ask if you thought about how towns are begun? Can a group of racists just walk up to a piece of land and be like "this is the rock upon which we will build a Chik fil a"? Things take time, organization, risk and political effort. What starts out as some temporary housing on a chunk of farmland ends up incorporated, and looking for investors. Unfortunately for many people, doing actual political analysis requires a concept of time and change.

I would think that someone taking a chunk of private property and turning it into Racismville would be an argument against private property, but instead you made it into dismissal of the risks. Which is about as wrong headed as someone could be since racism is a function of private property relations.

"Don't make a big deal about it" is what racist apologists say to justify racism. I don't think you're racist, you just have some wires crossed most likely, but the lack of understanding of the deeper problems imo disqualifies your views because it shows you haven't really thought about any of this in a meaningful way that connects abstractly defined social forces to peoples lived experience of racism.