My point is Irish vs. French for example are as different as Chinese vs. Japanese.
Both have distinct ethnic backgrounds which ARE different, both races have distinct features which are different, yet as a whole are lumped together because both have the same skin tone, similar to people lumping all asians together.
They're simply not. To take an obvious example, both Eire and Brittany in France are Celtic nations
. So, sure, we can adjust your statement to" Irish and parts of France vs. other parts of France are as..." but that essentially boils down to "Parts of France vs. Other parts of France are as different as...." and makes claiming "French" as an ethnicity untenable. And that's without getting in to Normandy, Piedmont, etc.
I'll cheerfully accept that the same problem applies to "Chinese", for example, which is crying out for subdivisions and clarity. Han and Mongol are clearly two different groups. But that doesn't seem to be the point you're making, in fact it seems to be the exact opposite.
He's referring to the existing populations of those countries for several generations, prior to the recent waves of immigration over the past half-century. In other words, "white-British" or "white-French" - even though those white populations themselves derive their origins from multiple regions of Europe, if you look far back enough.
That wasn't the impression I got. From "I work with death certificates and we have separate origin boxes for each Asian race, each African race, each Spanish race.
But white is white. Not french, not Irish, not English, not dutch. Just Caucasian/white.
Why is it that we are expected to be able to tell the different cultures of every race except white?"
it seems he is very much referring to country of origin as opposed to anything else ("Dutch" rather than "Dutch or Flanders" which would be the obvious split if he was talking about the culture, "Irish" as opposed to "Celtic" etc.)