There is no political movement of significance tryign to make white people feel guilty. I am not personally worried.
However there is certainly a tendency when talking about history present white people as somehow inherently bad. The fact that slavery was done by every population on the planet tends to get swept under the rug. Instead one presents the white people as the favored goto villain for anythign that ever went bad in history whether slavery, colonization etc.
Ultimately I think this is much more a story about different nations and cultures and ideologies. The skin color of the people is far more incidental.
I think it is far more relevant e.g to talk about Britain or France as coloniers than to simply talk about "white people" as colonizers. And even then it is deceptive. Colonial empires got built when no European nation was a democracy. Hence it was not a choice made by the average citizen but by an affluent elite, who often had as little disregard for their own people as non-elites.
If you read the ways the British elite in the 1700 and 1800 spoke of their own working class and poor, they basically deemed them lesser people to much the same degree as the disparaged people of different skin color. Social darwinists would claim the poor simply had inferior genese and were inherently stupid, lazy and immoral.
Even as late as Winston Churchill you saw a man who had no qualms gunning down his own people when they went on strike. Their lives were of no more value than the Indians he would cut down as a cavalry officer in the colonies.
The elite has often been good at pitting people against each other. The Rwandan genoicide happened in large part due to the pratices of the British elite of pitting Hutu and Tutsi against each other. Split and Conquer. Much the same trick was played in the Americas. It was beneficial to the elites to pit poor whites against poor blacks.
Thus when people make sweeping generalizations about "the whites" did this and that, one is really just playing into the narrative that the elites want to split people and keep them away from all the attention.
One saw this rhetoric successfully used against Bernie Sanders. The fact that he tried to raise up poor whites and blacks got used against him by the elites to sell the story that he didn't care for blacks. I guess his message wasn't sufficiently focused on race and racial divisions.
But should it, when one has common goals. Poor whites and non-whites have many of the same goals. They could have united for common good.
I am not poor but I have found that engaging in these sort of debates seldom end well unless I argue against racist. That is safe territory. But if you disagree with someone who is non-white on an issue, you can bet there is only a question of time before it gets used against me that I am white.
No that doesn't mean I am personally some kind of victim. I am in privileged position in most of society.
What it means is that these sorts of debates become lesser. All nuance gets sucked out of them, because there is only a limited number of approved narratives.
Try stating something different and the whole discussion derails into a discussion about your idenity rather than the actual issue at hand.
