I still dont understand what your problem is about racial realism?

It's pseudoscience. This is a good place to start reading. And even if I don't disagree with it, you're pretending to make a reasonable argument. Why do you get to skip over the biggest part of your thesis, that there's some substantial tie between these long-dead people and modern people?

You can't have it both ways. Either you're making a full argument or you're not.

If racial realism is redundant,

Redundant? No, it's simply false.

then why such a hue and cry over the African American Civil Rights Movement?

Because those people were being denied their rights in that very moment, solely because of their skin color. They didn't have to reach back to their ancestors to prove some wrong had been done to them - if you even looked black, then you were denied goods and services. There were actual crimes being committed against them on a daily basis, regardless of what happened to their ancestors.

A black person doesn't deserve civil rights because his ancestors were displaced. A black person deserves civil rights because he's a person. It has nothing to do with some primordial crime against his ancestors. He doesn't have to demonstrate that race is real to show that people treat race as real.

But I'm glad you brought it up - what is the solution to their problem? Do we ship the these people back to Africa, like you're doing with the Jews? Where is the homeland of the African American? Surely we don't just pick random points on the continent and drop them off. How does justice occur for the descendants of slaves?

But my argument is not to claim a homeland for the sake of race, but for the sake of justice.

Right, but you're saying justice for these old dead people can be brought about by treating nicely people of the same race. You're saying justice for person A can be brought about by doing something nice for person Z.

Why does justice follow genetic and cultural ties, especially over such long periods? Does a man whose ancestor was murdered a thousand years ago get to prosecute the murderer's desendents? Clearly not. And yet...

Why shouldnt Jews deserve a land?

You're the one arguing that they should, so simply asking why they shouldn't doesn't make your case. But alright.

It's because "the Jews" aren't a thing in the way you're using the term. It's especially because that races don't need or deserve lands. It's because this principle, if it were more generally applied, would result in chaos. You can't simply say "I'm setting up this principle, but I don't want to talk about its consequences outside of this one special case."