It isn't necessarily a racist argument to say that someone owes something to a group of people defined, in shorthand, by their race or ethnicity. Think of an election where the winning candidate was supported disproportionately by people falling under any (leaky) ethnic term umbrella.

But to say someone owes something to a race is another thing. It's really saying that, if someone else can file you under a certain racial classification, then you must behave as dictated by some (elected? rich and famous? vindictive?) spokesperson for that race.

And such a claim refutes the diversity of thoughts and values (the most relevant form of diversity) that strengthen society and its overlapping sub-groups.

Within each claim that one must display certain opinions or betray their race there is an arrow pointed to a gulag, a killing field, a gas chamber.

If Wolfe accepts the notion that one betrays one's race for not supporting legislation that presumes to benefit one's race, wouldn't that make the white supporters of Civil Rights traitors to their own race? If it is despicable to "pull the ladder up" from other people of your race, so they don't benefit from unfair advantages that you received, then wouldn't the white Freedom Riders suffer from the same criticism? After all, if they received benefit in their youth from white privilege, then how dare they deny that to the next generation of whites?

And if a society is going to promote one race above others, wouldn't it make sense that the majority race would take that benefit for itself?

The argument for Civil Rights was that seeking to benefit one race over another, as such, was wrong in principle. Clarence Thomas understands that. His critics undermine the moral basis for the Civil Rights campaign against racism.

His opponents are despicable.