1. The genealogical conception of ethnicity on which this construal of blacks is based is set forth and defended in Corlett (2003: Chapters 2–3) and is designed to refute the idea that self-identification is either a necessary or sufficient condition of ethnic identification concerning public policy considerations. In academia, there seems to be in recent years an epidemic of sorts of ethnic fraud, i.e., faculty claiming to belong to ethnic groups to which they do not belong, genealogically (Viren 2021). The genealogical conception of ethnic identification is specifically devised to, among other things, combat fraudulent or otherwise inaccurate claims to blackness concerning claims to reparations for U.S. slavery.

2. Much of the content of this section is based on Boxill (2003b).

3. Versions of this argument used to defeat a non-collective responsibility objection to U.S. black reparations is discussed in McGary 1999; Corlett 2010: 168–186.

4. For further discussion of the supersession and related objections to U.S. black and American Indian reparations, see Corlett 2003: 174–185; Corlett 2010: 156–160.

5. This section contains information that is detailed in Corlett (2010: 213–246; 2018).