That's just an issue of semantics. Most people, when referring to the "white race," mean people of European descent. It's why I chose to say "white" in the first place, since "Caucasian," as you said, can refer to Middle Easterners and North Africans as well.

And again, semantics. Nations are just large groups of people with a common genetic heritage. It's still racism, even if the groups I mentioned are more similar to each other than, say, Africans and East Asians. (Also, the Japanese were very ethnocentric before they were defeated in WWII. They were brutal toward China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)

Large-scale imperialism may have only been possible under capitalism, but that's only by virtue of capitalism spurring technological advancement and creating such a large amount of material wealth. And it's not like Western powers were uniquely horrible to their colonies, especially considering how Western medicine and agriculture allowed the third world to explode in population under their watch.

The western powers were all, at some point in time at multiple levels terrible to their colonies. They also took the right of these people to self-determination. Most western powers continue to economically dominate the third world countries and the relegation of the third world countries to the economic periphery of the worldsystem has kept these countries from developing, it has not aided them to do so.

Just wondering, since you believe in self-determination, would it be okay if white people set up explicitly white countries? And since Western powers are still economically dominating the Third World, should we just end international trade with the Third World to end the domination?

1.  Just wondering, since you believe in self-determination, would it be okay if white people set up explicitly white countries?

2.  And since Western powers are still economically dominating the Third World, should we just end international trade with the Third World to end the domination?

1. No, it would not be okay, for doing so would violate the basic human rights of the existing inhabitants or those seeking to immigrate (also a basic human right).  Human rights violations are violations against basic self-determination.

2.  No, ending trade would not be ideal.  Implimenting fair trade in its stead would be ideal and factories (belonging to a First World corporation), etc, should be held to the highest safety and environmental standards among the nations of the UN.  If anything should be ended, it is meddling with the sovereignty of these countries.  Political intervention should be limited to humanitarian efforts unless their government requests assistance in other areas---in these cases, neutral third parties should act as mediators/observers to ensure abuses don't occur on either side.

1. When did immigration become a human right?
2. Logically, that means everyone on the planet should be allowed to immigrate to the best country... which would then quickly cease to be the best country, or even a good country.
3. You have a pretty bizzare definition of self-determination if people aren't even allowed to determine the kind of people that their country consists of.
4. In fact, by your definition, Western, white countries are the only countries in the entire world that don't violate the human right of immigration.

1. Over 60 years ago.
2. Logic has little to do with your statement, unless it is of the ill variety.
3. It's a pretty straightforward definition. 
4. That's unsurprising, considering that most countries violate various human rights fairly regularly.

1.) You'll have to provide a source for that.

2.) I guess you've never heard of the "logical conclusion"? Your premise is that immigration is a human right, which means states should not be able to restrict it. If everyone wants to live in the best country possible, and there is no restriction on migration, then everyone will simply move to the perceived "best country." This isn't complicated.

3.) The UN's definition is that "nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference."

In case you need to know what sovereignty is: "The authority of a state to govern itself."

Border security and immigration law are components of sovereignty. Through self-determination, nations can freely choose their sovereignty. Therefore, immigration can be restricted under self-determination.

1) The UN.
2) Like I said, "logic" has little to do with your statement.
3) Thanks for providing that definition.  Looks like you glossed over "based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity".  Your 'whites-only country' is clearly anathemic to the definition you provided.  So, you can refer to 2) and then to 1). 

Case closed.

Reports of cultural bias are greatly exaggerated. If standardized tests are biased, how can East Asians perform better than Europeans on them?

Schools are as good as the students who attend them. If you want a full picture, I recommend Bad Students, Not Bad Schools: https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Students-Not-Schools/dp/141281345X

Moreover, better schools tend to be in wealthier areas, so that still doesn't explain why rich black kids do so poorly.