“In a country where whites still make up about two-thirds of the population, is it really such a good idea to push whites to start acting like a group with a racial identity…”
I’m repeating the quote in the comment below since it asks what you might think would be obvious but apparently isn’t. I notice the way in which white people (not coeval with White Americans) are ever and anon described in the mass. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all. Whites, en masse, are being nudged and will likely be pushed to identify as a constituency in the roundelay of identity politics. don’t get the feeling that progressive whites are in the least concerned about it or that that they’e aware that they’re fashioning the petrard by which they or their children/grandchildren will be hoist as the country’s demographics evolve to a polity that’s less white and, in places, anti-white. There’s yet to much progressive self-righteousness in the mix as the acceptables wag their fingers at the deplorables.
I doubt the new white identity will be framed in anything resembling notions of white supremacy. That horse has left the stables except for hopeless rearguard sallies. But as a distinct white political identity forms, non-whites, rising in power and status, may,by that time, be at one another’s throats. Mutual hostility between those who are movin’ on up happens when greed, righteousness and opportunism combine particularly during a time when the competitors are fighting over the allocation of a diminishing supply of capital as is beginning to happen now. The cracks in the armor of identity politics are just beginning to be perceptible. Give it another decade for the cracks to become splits.