Katrisha shares a valued comment:

It is difficult to feel welcome here as a black woman when blanket statements are tossed at will.
Many of “us” agree with much of what “you” say, but when blanket statements about our race are thrown, a) one automatically weakens their argument and b) it makes “us” who tend to agree, cringe or shy away.  (shrugs)

There is a bigger “there” within that comment, which deserves expansion – and perhaps a greater understanding.

In the field of ideas, conservative patriots can dress down the racists with quick dispatch.  Why?  Because the conservatives view people as individuals and not attached to collectives.   However, yes here comes the “but”,…. when the individual does not draw down their own collective – the battle of ideas is necessarily broad-stroked.
Here’s what I mean using examples.
EXAMPLE:   Not everyone who walks into a Muslim place of worship is a jihadist- minded radical Islamist.   However, when the construct of the worship itself is founded upon hate toward those of non-traditional Muslim ideology, the worshipper is similarly attached.
Like it or not, they are.   It becomes impossible for the ideology to be detached from the follower – even if the follower does not conform to the very tenet of the ideology.
People ask “where are the moderate Muslims”?   The answer  is, they are, for all intents and purposes inside, the very construct of the non-moderates.   What the moderate is, in essence, is a non-traditional Muslim.   Or in the words of the ideologues, a disbeliever, even though they feel they are following Islam, albeit a non-violent expression thereof.
When the moderate provides tithe to the ideology, like it or not, the moderate is condoning the end result of the ideology.   Again, there is no detachment.    [See the Holy Land Foundation as but one example]
The moderate is intellectually dishonest because they have to be.   If they were honest they would have to make a choice, a painful choice.   In or Out.  No grey.
This example, and the inherent ideological hypocrisy personified in video format.   Here you have Keith Ellison, a self-described practicing Muslim playing a song praising the Minnesota decision to recognize gay marriage:  A jubilant Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) posted a video to his YouTube account Thursday celebrating the first day gay marriage became legal in his state.

However, Ellison defines himself, advocates for, affirms and advances himself, around a religion, Islam –  which considers homosexuality to be the primary acceptable reason to kill people.   Gays are considered vile and their death demanded by their religion.
How is the double-sided fence walk possible?   How can this be reconciled?
It cannot be reconciled.   Well, not honestly.

Example #2 –  Democrats and Religion/Christianity:    Every single Democrat, within the power structure that is progressive, rails against everything that religion proclaims as important.
It was Barack Obama the candidate who himself said his opposition were “bitter, bible-clingers.”   As President Obama, everything he has ever done is antithetical to following Christianity.   Everything.
This Truth was never so evident as when it was witnessed during the 2012 Democrat National Convention.  When Democrats intentionally removed any/all mentions of God from their party platform, the nation began to awaken to the reality that Democrats do not advocate for, believe in, or consider valuable, the existence of God.
A discussion outside the convention hall began.
Recognizing the risk from this open discussion outside of their auditorium the hierarchy quickly assembled the collective Democrat group to a vote;  And put God, at least on paper, back into their party platform.    Watch what happened:

Clearly more than 1/3 of the audience did not want God as part of their outlook.   But the truth needed to be hidden.
The actions were clear;  The vote was cast;  The truth was witnesses;  But the truth was a risk.
God might have been replaced on paper, but in practice the rail against Christianity continued.   This was evidenced over, and over, and over, within all legislative constructs.
That is unless, and until, the truth is uncomfortable, the message in the minority, and deception needed once again to bring alignment.
Then, and only then, mysteriously you see Nancy Pelosi bringing pastors, ministers, and preachers to her podium to pray before votes cast.

You see, in these examples, because of the deception associated within both Islam and Democrats, it becomes impossible to address the ideological battles within the construct of their position(s) without flaying the innocents inside both who choose not to decide.
Such is also the case with the racists who construct the Black Grievance Industry, and those entrapped within it by the definitions of the racists.

They, the BGI, define all of the issues for argument around their skin color.  They must, because they have no shield strong enough to protect them on the battlefield of ideas. Everything about the BGI, and the positions they advance, is based on false premise, lies and deception.
For them everything is about skin color. Everything is defined by skin color. Every process, every construct, every thought, all of it – it is all about skin color. There is no individual consideration – it is all collective, and all similarly defined.
As the Muslim worship is based around compliant non-traditionalists, so too the AME (African Methodist Espicopal) church network is constructed around race, skin color and racists with compliant black people.  There is no individual consideration – it is all collective and similarly defined.
To understand the issue you must reverse the consideration. Imagine if the Grand Knights had a nationally accepted church network. Don’t you think every member who worshipped there, or even walked in the door, would be considered a racist?
Yet for the AME network? Nothing.
For the Black Grievance Industry?  Again, nothing.
•Congressional BLACK Caucus – what is the qualifier for membership?
•BLACK Entertainment Television – what is the qualifier for broadcast interest?
•Community Relations Service – what is the qualifier for advocacy?

There are no individuals, not as defined by the construct of the racist ideology we fight against.  There are only skin color collectivists, racists.
So when we are drawn into the battle, by necessity and need to confront racists, the definitions they use to define their association of collectivists are going to be the very definitions used to push back against them.
In the field of ideas, empowerment and cheering people on to self sufficiency, conservative patriots win every time.    However, the forces who fight just as hard to maintain dependence, authority, control and diminish freedom, define themselves not by ideas – but by skin color.
So while I totally understand what you are saying, and I cherish the thought, feeling and sentiment behind it, it must also be accepted there is no other way to fight those who define without confronting the very construct of their definitions.
The inherent discomfort should make the reader think about disassociating from the compliance within the collective they take exception toward.
However, years of indoctrination, and manipulative message control, reflexively make people think the messenger/warrior is racist.