Plenty of folks, including many scholars and activists, have NO PROBLEM employing group reasoning ON Whites, so Whites (and others) should have no problem using similar logic and analytical techniques as long as we do so honestly and with a healthy skepticism for any limitations.
Groups are an important facet of human reality and must be openly and honestly confronted to make sense of the World.
Science proves that some genuine differences exist between different races and ethnic groups, and for some traits and groups, these average differences may be substantial, at least when examining large populations. Of course depending on the traits and the groups involved, there may or may not be any significant differences, and for pretty much ANY trait and collection of groups, the individual variations for particular individuals can DRAMATICALLY override the average group differences.
One well-known group difference is that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is likely between perhaps 112-115 , which is significantly higher than White mean of 100 and the African-American mean of 85. Clearly at least part of Jewish intellectual excellence and practical achievement follows from this.
NOTE: I've seen conflicting values for mean Ashkenazi Jewish IQ; the point is there is a specific value that is probably between 107 and 115 and that its value is significantly higher than 100. It's the job of psychometricians to pin down the value down (and they may have done so without my layman's knowledge).
Another facet of group reasoning relates to participation by the group in the wider society to pursue their group interests using the full range of political, media, cultural, social, economic, psychological, intellectual and other possible levers of power and influence. In this context to talk about a group's action can be a bit slippery for several reasons, including:
- Typically many group members are not directly involved, in fact, a large portion of the group may not be aware of what is transpiring in its name and may not even be sympathetic to the policies pursued in their name. Usually a smaller, elite fraction of the group drives much of the group behavior, although as a general rule, they do typically follow some rough consensus or have support from the mass of the group.
- Different factions exist with different ideas, values, motivations, and disagreements between factions are common.
- Not everything a group tends to pursue may be relentlessly focused on advancing group interests.
In contrast there is broad agreement within some other communities between otherwise divided factions to vigorously pursue their own group interests. Jews and Blacks are the quintessential examples even though some dissenters, usually vehemently excoriated, exist within these groups.
I don't want to belabor this. I just want to acknowledge the trickiness of properly understanding the relationship between group and individual. The breakout of divergent group factions can be done when appropriate. When examining group tendencies there will almost always be specific counterexamples, but this doesn't detract from the larger point about groups having statistically significant differences.
In short: If non-Whites get a pony, Whites do too.