Your first article makes unsubstantiated claims and ignores the fact that 90% of the redlined homeowners were white.

Coates does the same, and for justification, cites people who do the same.

The third says, "“Race must have been a factor somewhere in the decision-making, because it otherwise doesn’t make a lot of sense". Note that the person making that statement says nothing about class, which would explain why black people, being disproportionately poor, were disproportionately affected by redlining. But if you're going to apply identitarian logic to redlining, do you think redlining hurt white Christians worse than white Jews because the ruling class is prejudiced against Christians?

I don't have a subscription to FT so I can't critique it.

The fourth takes the same race reductionist approach. Poor groups suffer more under capitalism. There's not much home ownership among poor whites either.

As for the fifth, I agree you shouldn't tell your race to people who ask for it. Only racists do that.

And no, this does not mean I am saying racism does not exist. I am saying it is more complex than race reductionists want to admit because they will do anything to avoid talking about class. If you doubt me, take another look at the links you shared.