True, as always, your great stories are summing up systemic racism. Personally I think the collective of your stories will make a great book, if you haven't considered that already.
But look what it is you wish to have equal rights in, it's a planet destroying system of energy slavery as stands.
We've practiced this all our known history and we seem scared to investigate its roots.
Here is a thought / question for you, as I recall you are a lawyer;
When a little money is invested to get more back, energy is gained, because money is energy, always physically and economically, it always has an energy value in markets.
When a little energy expended as work is returned by a lot more energy back as money, this is energy gained also.
Those two scenarios are how we get at least the energy we each need to metabolise for life. We usually start with the work case, and if we maximise the energy gained to much more than the amount we need to metabolise (around 150 joules per second 24/7, to a total of about 0.1GWhrs), we move to the investment case in life, retiring from the work case by the latter.
It isn't unusual to multiply the energy we gained by work in our lives by ten times or more, especially if we are university educated, but it's easily possible to do also by "criminal" activity.
But here's the rub; even though we have now the technology of solar energy, we don't currently monetise it. so the economic product created by it is effectively locked out of contributing to systemic wealth, including even to lift folk out of poverty, because even if we have lavish solar energy facilities, collecting huge amounts of energy, we don't monetise this, because the source energy was given for free per Joule.
Money is only issued on energy gained by the work and / or investment case, it's never issued for energy donated, hence why I advocate for issue of solar indexed stimulus.
When we trace the energy flows through every supply chain, every investment chain, they all trace back to exploitation of the planet. Workers do the dirty job of planet exploitation in remote places including classically Africa, mostly without knowing it, funneling back the energy we use in the financially richer places. This is energy colonialism.
The planetary exploitation always involves taking things that we not heat, converting those to heat.
The energy gained and funneled away as energy "profit" is only a small fraction of the energy the planet loses to heat.
This is increase of entropy, which is temperature rise by definition.
We mask that by claiming the temperature rise is due to a CO2 blanket effect, because by that "science" can carry on by profit, all research funded by profitable business.
But there is no blanket effect, the atmosphere is adiabatic, which means there can be no blanket effect.
So now we've measured the highest per month level of destruction ever, for the tenth consecutive month, we are seeing things were not quite as mainstream science expected, the timescales are rapidly contracting, it's exponential, it's the usable energy remaining in the planet running out, and it ends with a burning planet, and all money devalued to nothing.
So coming back to the central question, the question of profit, we have conclude profit is an energy lie.
Every transaction for profit has a planetary temperature cost, no exceptions, from the kids playing dime / penny gambling games in school, criminals stealing and drug dealing, to corporates buying and selling oil, even the food shops and restaurants, even farming, fishing, it's all done for profit, and it all results in temperature rise.
If one or the other in any deal for energy profit knew that the deal would contribute towards planetary destruction that would one day result in a burning, flooding planet, would they have done the deal?
Doesn't this mean all for profit deals in history are null and void, because neither party was made aware of the full consequences of the deal?
What deals are not for profit?
Doesn't this put all law and order into question?
Shouldn't all for profit deals now have in the contract that both parties are agreeing to contribute to a burning planet?
Who is the criminal, the crook who puts his/her hand into our pocket to steal our phone, or the corporate who steals the future of the planet?
To me this means law and order will have to be revised in terms of energy.
All profit has to be redefined in terms of energy, and this weighed up against other non profit activity, which we will get to, after solar indexed stimulus is commenced.
All crime needs to be redefined in terms of energy.
Some things won't change much, such as murder, actually more understanding of why murder is bad might be got by considering all people as potentially valuable, all are needed in the phase of humanity we move to; solar powered.
By that we will finally be using the only energy that can be used to reverse entropy, so our net activity will at last be creation.
Sorry mammoth reply, but it's the least I can cover whilst, explaining the basics I think, if it even is enough, let me know if not.
But I am most interested to know what you think, does this mean all deals for profit are null and void until appropriately revised, in your own expert opinion?