I didn’t take that stance one bit.
I took that stance that by leaving it out the author made obvious his agenda. He wanted to tell a story and he was DAMNED if including a fact that might ‘muddy the water’ of his narrative was going to stand in his way.
Along with the clearly an outright lie that X’s book didn’t mention his father’s adherence to Marcus Garvey.
How many lies do you need to hear before you dismiss the source as being less than truthful?
So far you have that he got the Marcus Garvey thing wrong, other than that you just keep blowing hot air, and I don’t know why.