Okay so what you're getting at is that this kind of speech is violent. It acknowledges a conflict and seeks to further a particular side through the adoption of defensive behaviours and attitudes. And you're taking a position that all violence is bad. But you're wrong. Violence, as you and I are defining it here, is a necessary part of self defence. Violence in self defence can put a stop to violence in aggression. A pacifist who is concerned with all violence, rather than just their own, has a moral obligation to defend the weak, using violence if necessary.
Your racist grandparents were members of the oppressor class, seeking to do violence against the oppressed, and were therefore contributing to the cycle of violence. But the woman who wrote this article, is trying to stop the cycle of violence by engaging in a defensive form of violence against an oppressor class in response to violence by that class. That's not the same thing.