I understand his argument to be that those who through word and deed draw attention to the very real--historical and ongoing--'disconnect' between America's proudly proclaimed ideals and the actual social, political, economic, legal and educational policies and practices of these United States, are doing a far better job of SUPPORTING those ideals than those who condemn them for it.

The above (and Mr. Pitts' writings on which it's based), is if anything a 'race-neutral' assessment.  If it makes some folks uncomfortable, I suggest it's because being asked to acknowledge injustice and hypocrisy makes them uncomfortable--particularly when (1) it impacts them far less than it does others, and (2) when they can't do much about it.

Folks confronted with injustice they can't ameliorate frequently try and rationalize it by telling themselves those afflicted by injustice must somehow 'deserve' it; this is less a 'race'-issue than a human one.  It's called 'blaming the victim.'