This is a good question. I would argue you do it by creating policies to help all low-income families, irregardless of identity.

Many government policies aren't just systemically racist (some indeed are), but are also systemically "class-ist". Meaning they are designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. If you segment a population (say Black communities), they will become disproportionately more poor over time, and if you segment your stats by race it then appears to be specifically targeting that group. In fact you can find similar stats for Mexican/Latino-americans, who are also victim to the same policies.

So if we focus on just fixing Black issues specifically, we are now ignoring another minority group. Why doesn't Google show "Mexican-owned" businesses, or "Asian-owned", or "Female-owned" businesses? This isn't progress, nor is it useful. Perhaps more useful identifier would be "Community-owned" or "Low-income-family-run establishment", so if people are really interested in helping these poor communities, they can do so universally. Segmenting ourselves by racial or gender identity does not solve the problem, and is in fact guaranteed to make things worse in the long run.

As a progressive I am frustrated that people who call themselves progressive are now promoting regressive racially charged policies. This is not what progress should look like.

I should think, perhaps by helping individual people instead. If someone is poor then someone might help them, I suppose. Then it won't be racist, it will be individualistic, it would seem.

Hiring someone for the job should be decided on if they are competent at that job, not on other criteria such as black, white, men, women, taller, religious, etc, unless that is relevant for this kind of job (such as acting in a movie, perhaps).

The challenge to the idea of hiring the most competent person (I know you didn't specify "most"), is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have had the opportunity to become competent at them due to systemic oppression.

What I generally don't see discussed is the hard part of the problem. A business should do their best to hire the best person to complete a job, but how do you do that while bringing up disadvantaged people so they have a fair chance to compete?

I think since America's centuries of legalized racism affects every Black American living today, every Black American deserves some form of remedy. I also think it's best for America long term (in terms of stability and growth) to make things right with Black America including economically. It's not good for America's stability to let the racial wealth gap stay the same as it was in the 1950s days of legal racism.

Why don't you just say it in plain English: You want cash reparations. At least you did in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005344

> It's not good for America's stability to let the racial wealth gap stay the same as it was in the 1950s days of legal racism.

I think there are few policies more likely to (further) destabilize American politics than cash payments to people with a certain skin color.

I'm in favor of cash payments and other investment for Black Americans to correct the centuries of extensive, targeted legalized racism against Black America. We need a Marshall Plan for Black America badly. Build up Black America after centuries of war against them like we rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War 2.

I agree with you that there would be a severe political backlash, especially among members of Trump's base. I still think significant investment into Black communities is badly needed regardless of the backlash and is in the best interest of the US in terms of social stability and economic growth. It's not good strategically to let wealth gaps stay the same or grow, it seems to increase the risk of conflict to let such massive inequality remain.