Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.
It’s convenient to omit that the Irish were not considered “white” when they were being discriminated against. They were instead considered their own, distinct race. In most contexts, “white” implicitly meant “normal” and anyone you want to discriminate against got their own, separate label (see also the Jews and the Romani). That’s the crux of the problem.
>>It’s convenient to omit that the Irish were not considered “white” when they were being discriminated against.
That wasn't out of convenience, I honestly didn't know that. But yes, it makes sense that these definitions can become arbitrary when there is a need for that. That is the problem.
Actually, no. The Irish were not considered white when they were oppressed. This is one of the key components of white supremacy, the definition of white is absurd and ever changing in order to achieve various political goals.
This is the crux of it and why a lot of people logically follow the middle ground such as All Lives Matter and would do so more of it weren't so viciously attacked. As soon as you get into this messy game of "but they did that to this group" and "those others did that only after this group did that thing", etc you're in a spaghetti mess and there is no way of untangling it.
We're witnessing an entirely new oppressed class of people being created right before our eyes in slow motion. When we realize that as a society, we'll have added another layer of complexity and the cycle will be even more difficult to fix.
The middle ground is not logical. That is fallacious reasoning. It may very well be the the most extreme option is correct. It's not often the case, but you can arrive to those conclusions using non-fallacious reasoning.
I'm not advocating or promoting the middle. What I'm saying is that it is logical to take the position I mentioned in the sense that it's the only way to be fair to everyone. That's because the alternative requires you to undo the passage of time or have perfect knowledge of every detail of history (because if you take shortcuts and generalize you're being unfair to innocent bystanders that were never involved).
Two wrongs don't make a right. And redefining one of those "wrongs" to be right because it's fixing the first wrong is a mess and people rationally (guess that's a better word for you? I'm not referring to logic in the inductive reasoning sense) see the inconsistency.