I'm an aspiring historian as well, as I imagine many people here are. In general, all other things being equal - I personally believe quite strongly that all historians should ideally have some ethical and intellectual standards in their research. This includes representing their sources fairly and transparently.

In Australian historiography, race relations are a fraught topic - particularly in regards to the legacy of frontier conflict. Many prominent Australian historians on either side (right and left, more or less) have come under fair fire and criticism for misrepresentation of sources. Keith Windschuttle is a very controversial historian whose arguments are, more or less, that racism and frontier conflict in Australia has been exaggerated by left-wing historians, who prefer to discuss Australian colonialism as inherently racialised or militarised even when doing so is misrepresentative of evidence. I don't personally agree with him, and his own conclusions about the nature of Australia's treatment of Indigenous nations are often (ironically) academically flimsy and racially insensitive - but if there is one thing he has done, it is academically challenge people with a different view to him to rely upon a much higher standard of evidence and argumentation than they did previously. Opposition, even on emotive topics, is part of the nature of research.

All things considered, the very fact that you take racism seriously -and are worried about 'whitesplainig' is an indication that you're almost certainly not a Windschuttle-type of academic. If you have serious and grounded concerns about the representation of sources by another historian - well, that historian is presumably an adult and can put on their big boy pants - being questioned, peer-reviewed and having your research analysed is the job description.