This question is so poorly phrased. The way its asked makes it sound as if every race was given a country, and white people just so happened to miss out. Not to mention there are many European countries with >90% white population. So this question is just nonsense.

**Whites do not need their own country because of the benefits of racially and culturally integrated societies and history of colonialization.** Rather than arguing that this opinion is, to me, a divisive and dangerous one, I am going to highlight all of the ways in which a culturally and racially diverse society/country are of benefit to us. Diversity is overwhelmingly beneficial for our children, our workspaces, our communities and in terms of positive international relations. Here are just some (for there is a near infinite list I’m sure) of the benefits of whites **NOT** having their own country: Economically and in the [workplace](https://www.peoplescout.com/insights/racial-ethnic-diversity-in-workplace/)… - Diverse cultural perspectives can inspire creativity and drive innovation - Cultural sensitivity, insight, and specific knowledge makes a business more globally competitive - Diverse teams are more productive and perform better - Greater opportunity for personal and professional growth - Fewer internal disputes and grievances - Improved accessibility to new and diverse customer markets - Greater flexibility and adaptability in a globalized world - [Ninety-six percent of major employers](https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/?agreed=1), Wells, Fox, and Cordova-Cobo note, say it is “important” that employees be “comfortable working with colleagues, customers, and/or clients from diverse cultural backgrounds.” For our children… - Multiracial communities improve race relations and reduce hostility. This feeds through to younger generations and fosters sustained reduced prejudices. - Students can learn better how to navigate adulthood in an increasingly diverse society - Improved social cohesion and learning opportunities Internationally… - [Western dominance and white privilege permeate the field of international relations](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/cico.12445) . “Anti-Japanese racism guided and sustained U.S. engagement in World War II. During the Cold War, racism and anti-communism were inextricably linked in the containment strategy that defined Washington’s approach to Africa, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America”. Also the argument for whites having their own country ‘like every other race and colour’ is amusing as by as early as 1914, a [large majority of the world's nations](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/colonialism) had been colonized by Europeans (white people) at some point. Therefore it is factually inaccurate to say that every other race and culture has their own country because likelihood is that at some point, white people invaded it.

I'm generally in favour of the basic point here, that ethnic groups should be allowed to determine their own nation states. However I don't know what is meant by "white" here? One might be Anglo-Saxon, that is a race. Slavs are also white but are a different race, as are Serbs as are Finns. There seems to always be a bit of a double standard with this sort of thing where basically white people must be really tolerant and embrace multi-cultural-ism but nobody else in the world needs to?

I'm generally in favor of the main point, though I'm very much not a fan of the general tone of these sorts of discussions, and they are often tie-ins to ethno-nationalistic ideologies. But do notice: Where are all the criticisms of China for not having enough people of African or Hispanic lineage? Why is nobody concerned by Japan, who has some of the strictest citizenship policies in which you could have several generations live there but never be considered Japanese because of your background? Are people protesting them for systemic xenophobia? The narrative seems to be that every ethnic group in the world should be allowed their own unique culture and ethnic identity, but when you get to Europe, suddenly it's the "most racist continent", despite high ratings in accepting diversity. Europe sharing the same ethnic homogeneity as the far east is considered problematic, when they are the natives of their land all the same. Such a criticism should either be rejected, or distributed evenly. But this targeted selectivism doesn't make much sense to me. This argument does, however, work very much in the US, where many different ethnic groups have taken root in different places at different times, none of whom are the original inhabitants, who are barely acknowledged. Beyond native Americans, there is no specific or unified "American" ethnicity to claim. The country simply hasn't been around nearly long enough.