I feel like the author dismisses the other explanation too easily. I might be wrong, but I don't really know if it's "educated whites" more than just "educated

I feel like the author dismisses the other explanation too easily. I might be wrong, but I don't really know if it's "educated whites" more than just "educated people" who yes, unfortunately skew white. If there is evidence educated POC also take this stand then I suppose I stand corrected. For example, a lot of "woke stuff" I hear or see from activists or sociology educated creators on youtube or twitter are people of color. A very controversial analogy I can give which I hope is not in misunderstood is analogous in degree is child sexual abuse. I forget where I read it but because children are innocent, they don't often feel hurt from the initial abuse. However, from growing and becoming aware what had happened does the nature of the abuse become apparent to them after which the trauma begins to become real. Hopefully in this case it is clear that "not being aware x is bad" is not a sufficient argument for "x is not really bad." I feel like on some level that is well below this analogy in terms of severity and mere obliviousness to the overall connotation of what might be happening (as we're talking about adults who are merely oblivious to facts of history or power relations in society) lie acts or systems of racial discrimination. For example, perhaps a black person trying to get financing to buy a home in the 60s wasn't aware of redlining and instead might merely interpret it as being how things are. It does not mean that that obliviousness meant it was okay and that such harm crept into other areas that were more apparent and directly felt (like lower rates of wealth for blacks, and thus more exposure to crime and neglect in communities). The average poor person of color would be cognizant of the more apparent ills of ghettos while not really being aware (and thus offended) by the deeper structural causes of the more apparent ills. Another example, a new refrain amongst some activist is that urban highways are a legacy of racism. This is a true fact if you look at the history, urban highways often demolished poor parts of a city and divided the remaining poor neighborhoods from well-off neighborhoods, intensifying segregation and its ills. If you ask an average poor person if they think urban highways are a source of ills for them today, they'd probably say no even though it is a fact that it was. Even for someone without a car who is more likely to be a victim of road fatality (poor POC are more likely to be victims of pedestrian fatality from car drivers) they may know life is harder for them in general without a car but they simply are unaware of it being a system of power (car culture) that has a lot of roots in history and isn't merely the state of nature. Anyway, while I feel like it is good for academics to be tempered by the groups they want to understand (that's fair and should be a key consideration, of course), people really should not discount sociologists and their research, especially as not all of them are white and some do in fact experience said systems of power they critique and have in addition tools and knowledge of history to put said analysis in context.