A thought experiment:
Imagine whites and nonwhites as two guys in a closed room, both armed with handguns pointed at each other. Mr. White has on armor called 'white privilege'. Mr. Nonwhite has no such armor. The guns they have are called "collectivism" or "tribalism".
In order to de-escalate the situation, and possibly overthrow the malicious entity that locked them there in the first place, who should put their gun down first?
Some people (leftists, especially) might say that the armored guy should drop the gun first, since he retains an upper hand: the armor. The thinking goes, that if the nonwhite guy still decides to shoot, the white guy can tackle him and not die, due to his armor. The nonwhite should not put the gun down first, because to do so would be complete surrender; he would be vulnerable, and have no trump card in case the white guy decided to shoot.
This situation is a modified "prisoner's dilemma," which examines two prisoners who are caught together, but separated at the police station and offered leniency in exchange for confessions:
Option A: One rats out the other: An imbalance in trust results in one gaining freedom, and the other jailed.
Option B: Both stay silent: Mutual Cooperation leads to the best outcome. Maximum freedom, for both.
Option C: Both rat each other out: Simultaneous Distrust leads to an inferior outcome, where neither person gets adequate freedom.
Note the conclusion of the dilemma: "two completely 'rational' individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so."
Now, we start to apply this: It is obvious that white people and nonwhite people are:
1) Not one person (uncoordinated)
2) Not rational (this follows from 1)
3) Imbalanced in political power, wealth, education, and crime rates (distrust exists aplenty)