Ah, the all too academically familiar essentialist tasty bunny. As Reed says "Apostles of antiracism frequently can’t hear this sort of statement, because in their exceedingly simplistic version of the nexus of race and injustice there can be only the Manichean dichotomy of those who admit racism’s existence and those who deny it. There can be only Todd Gitlin (the sociologist and former SDS leader who has become, both fairly and as caricature, the symbol of a “class-first” line) and their own heroic, truth-telling selves, and whoever is not the latter must be the former. Thus the logic of straining to assign guilt by association substitutes for argument." It is either all-in anti-essentialism or essentialism. This logic ends discussion by (self) ascribing an ethical power to the person who can assign the essentialist argument against any view not their own. So lets not just shift the discussion from anti-racism to anti-essentialism. That gets us no where.
Brad