I agree that the policies and practices in 18th and 19th century America had incredible destructive impacts on black people and communities, and those impacts are still widely prevalent today. That’s not broad brush generalizing. Calling it “whiteness” is. Here is what I get when I google the term:
Further down on the list of results are hits that are more in line with how you are using the term. Again, I understand your usage - I simply reject it. Adding the suffix “-ness” typically turns an adjective into a noun, meaning the state of being the original adjective.
This is what you said when another poster leveled essentially the same criticisms, but instead of calling it “whiteness”, just said “white folks”:
It’s clear you were using the term in the same way as the person you were responding to, white folks vs. whiteness, same utilization with the same message. But you saw fit to recommend against extremely broad brush attacks in one of those instances. Do you think there is some substantive difference in those terms where the use of one would merit a caution against broad brush attacks, and the other is totally immune to the same caution? Dude look in the mirror.
It’s basically a giant True Scotsman. This super broad generalized attack, but when there’s pushback, it’s oh no, I’m only talking about this specific other group. It’s ineffective because you are redefining words that generalizes about a broad group of people as a pejorative. Systemic or institutional racism, even White Supremacy are better descriptors, and have a more widely understood etymology. This isn’t tone policing - it’s using words in standard ways for effective communication.