Whilst labels like “white” are useful for quick discussions and broadly getting your point across, I think to discuss it like this you need to define it a bit more. It seems like white can mean quite a few different things depending on the context, we have some posters mentioning that white in the US would typically not include Irish or German, but if you are in Europe, they would definitely be called white. It seems in general use in the anglosphere, white means English-speaking people, mostly of central/north/western European descent (and hence having pale skin), here I am including the white colonisers of the US.

I agree that this group tends to hold a majority of the power in the imperial core, but because it is a some what loose grouping, you might run into issues talking about the finer points, like for example “white slave trading families”, on an international level, would have to include those in the UK, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, etc. as well as those in the US. If you are looking from a US-centric viewpoint, you may not consider France in that group (for example), and I think that would be incorrect.

Because this group of white people does tend to hold the greater power in the imperial core, and racism is systemic oppression based on race, I think it is often accurate to say that, in the imperial core, racism doesn’t affect white people.

I think the term white can be a bit misleading, so prefer to just refer to oppressed and oppressing people/classes