Because you resent the fact that these people, strictly based on their skin color, are in office.
No. I don't. I'm not even in the same country as they are, so there's simply nothing to be resentful about. I'm a middle-aging white male myself.
The subjects of the OP was "Is there a place at the table for white men[?]" in reference to politics.
I was pointing out that the available data (ya'know, actual reality) shows that not only is there a place for white men at the table, but white men take up more than a representative share of places at the table. Relative to the population, by about 3:1.
This is further evidence of your racism.
Firstly because you degrade ALL people groups by treating members of those groups as if skin color of gender were all that defined them.
That's not what I did
AT ALL. I listed a set of statistics on race, gender and religion on US legislators showing one group (White, male, Christians) is over represented compared to the population at large.
I suspect you know this, and are attempting faux outrage and cries of "racism" in an attempt to deflect.
You don't need to be the same age, race, or gender to lead a people.
Where did I claim the converse?
What I do claim is that political demography shows that the greater the representation of minority groups in politics, the more equal and equitable outcomes are generated for all.
I'll just quote Martin Luther King here: "
There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a large segment of people in that society who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that that have nothing to lose. People who have stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don't have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it."