Good article. You're right, too. This is a key strategy racists use—characterizing even the implication they're racist or holding racist views as the gravest libel.
How dare you!?!
Still, some quibbles.
Why do people believe that amending "blah, blah, blah!" to a point somehow invalidates it? It was a different time.
Consider the prime example of Churchill: Sure, he was a white supremacist. He even said so. Anti-semite, however, no. I disagree. Sure, he has said & written things that would rightly raise eyebrows today, but [sorry] it was a different time. Do we really know more than his Jewish Epping & later Woodford constituents who consistently kept him in Parliament over 50 years?
Among many goofs & misleading comments in the Seymour article, one stands out: Seymour declares that even Churchill's support for Zionism had a "colonial" taint. No doubt he's right. Why does he suppose the US has been such a consistent supporter of Israel?