Re: 'Facts' are historically situated
If Historical context is important, how far back should we go? 5 years? 10 years? 200 years? How about 20,000 years? Should we consider the Mongols as receiving just deserts for their occupation of most of northern Europe? Should we despise the Egyptians for monopolising such advanced construction techniques at the price of so many slaves? Should we perhaps discuss the rise and fall of nations in the Americas, or Australia instead? Should we consider the extermination of the Denisovians, Neaderthulls, or Homo Habilis? How far back should we reach, and for how long should the descendants pay? The structure of your argument has holes that cannot simply be hand waved away.
Also White Man? You are making fun of a genetic condition caused by poor nutrition, as farming was imported, and even forced on the local populations in Europe by oppressive mediterranean colonisers. The nutrition was so poor that the local populations had to produce extra vitamin D, or die. Pre-agricultural Europeans were all Black, so how far back in time are we reaching for historical context?
"Equal" does not mean being the same, otherwise you and I would have to be genetically identical, and you would not be allowed to like corn fritters, as I don't. "Equal" means living by the same rules and standards. A King, A Priest, and a common man are not allowed to steal property, Period. The King cannot take it from the common man even though he has an army and and the common man does not. The Priest cannot seize property in the name of whatever god, regardless of if he sees you as a believer or an heretic. And neither can the common man take property from the King, or the Priest, even though the common man likely has less. Seeking a system in which every category has "equal" representation also means seeking a system in which the King, the Priest and the common man live by seperate rules. What odds will you give that the Kings rules will be better than the common mans rules?
Also this has zero to do with power, 40 year old white men have spent some 22+ years on their craft. This makes them competent, not powerful. Anyone who has spent the same amount of time honing their skills should be respected for those skills, and that respect may place them into positions that wield power (but this is by no means their right). It is their competence that grants them an opportunity to weild these privileges. When anyone is placed into such a position, without having first earned the competence, expect people to complain. And if those who have the competence are predominately from some given category, it stands to reason that most complainers will be from that given category. So when a 40 year old White Man from a community mostly comprised of 40 year old white men, should complain about someone being placed in a position of power through a fiat process that never considered that individuals competence, their admonishment is not moaning. Their admonishment is an alarm bell. Many such alarm bells are a warning that the social structures, that are meant to constrain power so that its use is limited and exercised with competence, are being usurped by those without the experience, nor the learned restraint to wield those powers safely. The incompetence increases the chance that they will maintain their position through force of power, rather than by fairly achieving the necessary competence and maintain their position due to their own merit. Personally, I would rather have a competent person in charge, not a forceful one. A competent individual would recognise my own competence and help me. A forceful individual would fear my competence and punish me.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
