This is typical “progressivist” nonsense. Your neighbour is supporting a presidential candidate you dislike, so that makes him a racist? Maybe he just doesn't like Clinton. Maybe he likes Trump’s economic policies. How the hell do you know if you haven’t asked him? You are afraid to allow your son to walk past his house? Why? In case the poor boy is traumatised by a Trump sign?
But you then talk about racism. How predictable. Your spiel is basically a regurgitated template now. “I am against racism and anybody who says anything I don’t like is a racist. Now I am going to lecture everyone about how everything in the world is racist and its all about the colour of my skin. So I am going to pepper my post with patronising admonishments and borderline racist criticisms of white people………. because I’m not a racist……… or something.
As for you vague comments about totalising and reductive history books: “Totalising and reductive?” Is that the latest in “progressivist” newspeak? More vague meaningless rhetoric to mask the fact that you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
I teach history at a university in Ireland. I would be interested in specific examples of what you call “Totalising and reductive” history. But I do not think you will provide any.
Your comments about violence against young black men betray the fact that you have not studied the figures and are not aware of the facts. I suggest the FBI and the annual crime statistics figures a better place to start than the incoherent mindless slogan chanting of Black Lives Matter.
Finally you want white people to “stay put” in areas where they are not liked or may even be in danger. Why should they do that? Nobody owes anybody else that. I would certainly not stay in a neighbourhood where people were hostile to me, and I make no apologies to anybody for that.
But if you are suggesting that black locals are intimidating those white people, then why don’t you lecture black people not to be racist?