When you stop thinking it's fine to judge entire groups of people by the actions of some, and when you start thinking that intent matters (e.g. there is a distinction between manslaughter and first-degree murder), then you'll be ready to enter the world of civilized humans (note that most people of every race in the U.S. are already there, though the exceptions can be very important).

Your reaction is exactly upside-down. You are vocally advocating making as many enemies as possible by holding the good-natured but poorly-informed to the same standards as the malicious, and then saying that your priority is to be less oppressed. You could hardly pick a worse strategy.

If you explained that you are so overcome with emotion that when it actually happens, even though you know better, you're unable to avoid lashing out as if it were all intentional, then people could perhaps understand. If that's true, I'm very sympathetic. There are sources of real and severe trauma, and it can be exceedingly difficult to overcome trauma to regain freedom of action rather than being limited to reaction.

But if you're advocating for making enemies where none exist, dismissing regular human decency as "fine-tuning", well, it's going to be an unnecessarily hard slog.

People in positions of greater privilege have the responsibility to use their privilege for the betterment of all, so hopefully even with you advocating willful antagonism against the broad group of allies you need to get anything done in a democracy, we'll still get there quickly.