But he's making an excellent point. The reality is that there are 2 things that exist. 1) FBA being a lineage
that only works with a logical definition.
otherwise it is an ill-defined social-construct of a lineage.
is a jamaican whose people were in america at its foundation in 1700's, then sold south, a foundational black america, more than a black american whose family arrived on the last ship in 1865?
is a liberain who left america in the 1700's an FBA?
do brehs those with 50%+ of gringo heritage owe money to FBA too?
are breh freemen from africa or europe who moved to the states pre 1865 FBA?
in the absence of records, how can these kinds of FBA-ness be proven? Is relative FBA-ness a thing?