What if King Kong's fur had been white?

I feel I may face great opposition in bringing this question up, but does anyone else feel that Snead’s argument is somehow lacking in justification of the idea that King Kong is the representation of, mainly, the black man and the entire movie a political message supporting colonization and the suppression of minorities?
While I feel Snead makes great observations about how the film could be interpreted if this basic argument were proven, I feel the basic assumption is never truly justified.
On page 17, he makes some convincing arguments about the parallels between Denham’s venture and the African slave trade, but if even if we go along with this comparison, I’m not sure how Snead can then make the argument that the film is endorsing this concept. The consequences of Denham’s removal of the beast from his natural habitat into “civilization” are not positive, I think most would agree; even if the beast is killed in the end, I wasn’t left with a feeling of endorsement of Denham’s venture.
In fact, I wasn’t left with much sympathy or sense of identification with Denham either; perhaps it is because I am from a different time and background than the majority of the intended audience at the time of the release. All connections to colonization and the idea that we have the “right” to intrude and take things or even living beings are tied to Denham, who is not considered the hero of the story, and does not seem to be the one the audience identifies with; isn’t Jack the typical Hollywood hero?
Don’t get me wrong, I feel like the article brings up many interesting points and definitely makes me reconsider the way I interpreted the film; I think I consider it an example of the point that our lecturer last class brought up, which I thought was very important: Sometimes these writings are more about inspiring discussion than proclaiming ultimate truth.