i think that move would be "essentialist" (if i understand the term correctly) and racist.

as for your second point:  i think her own narrative is that colonialization, imperialism and globalization, primarily and overwhelmingly carried out by white people in recent history, are responsible for theft and abuse against non-white cultures across the world, and that is what she -- as an indian -- has in common with africans, asians, etc.  while historically it may be inaccurate, i am skeptical that it is essentialist or racist.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

I think it's fair to say that she has serious issues with men and white people.  But that is not the same thing as saying that she hates men and white people.  And it is certainly not the same thing as saying she is racist.  By that logic, every person who spews vitriol against "Anglo-American" this or that is a racist, and that doesn't seem correct.

A combination of hair-splitting and Aunt Sally defence.

My experience with male-preventing dance teachers is that once you've addressed every supposedly real excuse for not allowing men into classes you're left with the great unsayable. As Sherlock Holmes said, "If you exclude all other possibilities, then whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth"

And I am as vitriolic about "Anglo-american" economic and political behaviour as anyone, yet to suggest I am prejudiced against Americans, or British for that matter, is just silly.

keep to the Fen Causeway