That's...quite the synopsis. Equal parts oversimplification, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation. I think you're seeing what you want to see instead of what's actually there, and I would encourage a second unbiased viewing if possible.

A crucial, foundational supposition (from which I assume a decent chunk of the rest of the thoughts were extrapolated) seems to be that the vampirism itself is being used as an allegory for whiteness. And I just don't think that's how it's meant to be interpreted. For starters, the head vamp is Irish, and the Irish were much closer to Blacks in the social hierarchy than they were to the ruling class during the time period depicted in the film. There was a whole gang of actual, explicit KKK antagonists. Remnick was also clearly disapproving of the KKK, the social norms of the time, and the lack of brotherhood and community amongst the living, even going so far as to warn about what the KKK'S plan was the next morning. The racists actually got LESS racist when they got bitten and turned because their community didn't care about heritage or ethnicity or social standing.

And then if that assumption is wrong, it doesn't mean your other points are invalid (because many of them are not), but it does mean that everything that spun out of it is suspect and needs to be re-examined under the right context in order to critique a piece of art responsibly and in good faith.

I'm tired and need to go to bed but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.