He hasn't "continued" to talk about it - he held his silence for a long time, and then made a brief speech. In my opinion, it is exactly his job to talk to the people when so many of them are so upset, and it's not fair for us to expect him to remain silent this time, because it's race-related and he is part black.

He doesn't say it was racist, and he only barely touches on the actual case. He doesn't say the verdict was wrong, or anything even close. In fact, he commends the judge.
What he does say is that it's important for us to realize why so many people jumped to call it racist, that they think they have a good point, and why. I personally want to hear that sort of thing from him.

Which things are dramatic embellishments? I've just read the text of the speech again, and I truly don't know what you're talking about. If you're not talking about the recent speech I've linked below, please link me something so I know what we're talking about.

Have you read the whole thing? I genuinely do NOT agree with you, and I'm actually quite confused as to how you can take the viewpoint you do from the attached speech. He's calm, explanatory and reasoned - is it the laid-back attitude that you don't like? He talks equally of the issues on both sides, which is important. It gives me kind of a nice feeling in my chest, not some sort of agitated angst.

No, you cannot ignore that he is talking about that shared history of color. You're taking it out of context, and getting exactly the wrong meaning - he isn't lumping them together by his own choice, he's pointing out that others have treated them as though they are all the same, regardless of all those differences you mention.
If you disagree that they have a right to it, I hope you'll excuse me for not thinking you are appropriately placed to know the truth. As I mentioned somewhere else, we are still living with people who weren't allowed to sit in the front of the bus - we can't pretend that they haven't passed down those stories, or that the young won't have picked up on that. And the civil rights victories weren't exactly a point blank stopping point for poor treatment - that sort of thing takes time.

He's saying that BECAUSE there is a shared history of treatment based on nothing more than color, he can understand why they might immediately see racism where it may not be. That they share a sensitivity due to this. And he's asking us to understand that.

In general, I agree. However, whether he's right or not with the statistic, he's talking about something that many people feel is true, and that we need to accept if we are to make any effort to understand the lingering anger. I can't say I think he's wrong.