What exactly is this article getting at? Is it advocating for black people to be excused from professional standards, and have the bar lowered "because racism"? Or is it implying that black people are somehow less innately qualified, and thus require special hand-holding?
There have been many times in my professional career when I have quite happily served under black or other non-white managers or supervisors, and without exception they all espoused and/or embodied the very same sensibilities (i.e. hard work, meritocracy) that you vilify here as "white supremacist".
As just one example, I worked on a Government of Canada contract in which my immediate supervisor was a black woman, and our manager was also a black woman. It is also worth noting that the person at the very top of that organization, the "Assistant Deputy Minister" (or “ADM”) in Government of Canada parlance, was a man of Indian descent.
Our manager, who had a Master of Business Communication degree, had very high standards for herself and her subordinates, and so over the course of three years (and numerous contract extensions) I had adjusted to her expectations.
In my last year in this workplace, our team was presented with the Award of Merit for that year, due in no small part to the black woman leading us. (A black woman's leadership resulted in an award recognizing an apparently "white supremacist" concept like "merit", presented to us by a non-white ADM. Let that sink in, DarkSkyLady.)
This experience served me quite well at my next government contract, where I had a white manager with a non-communications background who tended to run things on a more informal/looser basis. (In fairness, this new manager's scope was much more generalized and wide-ranging, given that he was managing an entire division with numerous departments, rather than leading a small and highly-focused communications team. In short, I worked in this new position as a communications team of one.) Being fresh off my previous contract, I carried on in this new position *as if* my previous manager's standards and expectations were still in effect, mostly because that was simply the mindset I had internalized and was how I had become used to working. This caught my new manager off-guard (in a very good way), to the point that he called up my recruiting agency contact and said, "Where did you find this guy?!?!".
And so the rhetoric in this article simply doesn't jibe with my lived experience. I can't think of any instance in my professional career where I had some sort of race-based advantage over black or other non-white colleagues. Perhaps it's because, as per the example above, I was too busy serving under and learning from them.
The problem I'm having with this newer, purely theoretical notion of "white supremacy" is that it seems designed to keep black people rooted in resentment towards whites specifically, as well as successful people (of any color) in general. (After all, "a person does not have to be white to perpetuate a white supremacist mindset.") Rather than advise her readers to not "uplift" a very superficial "white supremacy", she would be much more helpful if she focused on uplifting the black community by shining a spotlight on successful black people, and exploring what they did and what belief system they internalized in order to get where they are now.
Ironically, as it stands now, with this article the author is the one doing the true work of *actual* white supremacists by advocating (explicitly or implicitly) for black defeatism and non-professionalism. (Yes, humanity is an essential quality, but on its own it will never pay the bills, regardless of which race is supposedly in charge.)
I would say that activists who claim to represent the black community ought to examine what they're actually fighting for, and try to ensure that their work and *actual* white supremacy aren't simply two sides of the same coin.
