The most objective argument I have to support this is that they keep talking about "whites" as a race. Never "white Americans", "caucasians", "white europeans" etc etc, just "whites" or "white people". Which is hugely problematic considering the entire concept of white as a race is incredibly modern. Before the 19th century, there wasn't a concept of whiteness, you belonged to a nation rather than a race. And it kind of makes sense, since where do you even draw the line on white? Are Egyptians white (Rami Malek...)? What about much of the middle east, many Syrians could pass for either white or Arabic? Or some western Asian countries, like most of the -istans?
Ultimately, the idea of a white race was created on classist principles. The Irish were accepted as whites, despite being persecuted for centuries, as they were seen as "better than black". They weren't seen as white at all since that concept had not been created until mass immigration to the US. There's a good quote on this: [1]
>The Irish, arriving poor, were in direct contact and competition with the African Americans whose social class they shared. They managed to become identified as white through their complicity in the oppression of blacks. Despite, or perhaps because of, calls from Daniel O’Connell in Ireland for the Irish in America to support the abolition of slavery, the American Irish felt their tenuous position in America would be weakened further if they were to associate themselves (or allow themselves to be associated with) the plight of the Africans in America.
My point isn't really to start a debate on whiteness or anything like that. My point is that throughout this entire interview, where they say the word "white" in various forms eighteen times, and use phrases like "white supremacy", "whitesplaining", "whites cannot be the victims of racism", they never once mention that whiteness is a concept that was made specifically for discriminatory purposes. Even if that doesn't fit their agenda, mentioning the origins of the "white race" should be a prerequisite to talking about race hierarchies at any such length. It's like an electrical engineer not knowing what electrons are.
A lot of this interview just reeks of Jordan Peterson-esque pseudo-intellectual tripe. They even mention him in passing, and the site seems to have multiple articles on him. I probably won't have the patience today to actually debate any of this in length, but I implore anyone who is taking this article seriously to look up the troves of valid criticism of Peterson [2], because a lot of it applies to this article too: I honestly do not think the authors are qualified to discuss the sociological concepts they're talking about, and this is coming from someone who freely admits he does not have the qualifications to discuss it either. We shouldn't be giving a platform to people like this.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130428181555/http://www.polsis... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas