I wanna add in a bit that's relevant, but I'm gonna have to preface that this isn't a rebuttal. I'm in agreement that there's a detrimental white air to cohost, and that this timeline is fairly accurate.
A huge amount of the discussion around racism I end up seeing on the english-language internet applies a lot of assumptions that are specific to current tensions and dynamics in most of the USA and Canada, but don't generally apply elsewhere and have exceptions in the USA and Canada that many aren't fully aware of.
Particularly, you see a lot of collapsing of various cultures into "white" when the ruling class prefers an ethnic group with light skin outside of asia. I don't personally know how applicable that is in the USA as I don't live there, but study on american racism I've read tells me it is likely extremely applicable.
The reason why this can create a problem is that it describes a specific cultural relationship in the USA that doesn't exist in the same form elsewhere, ie whereas in the USA being "white" qualifies you for political preference, and "white" is a very wide thing based primarily on skin colour and native language, elsewhere the requirements for political preference are typically more strict (eg. most americans could probably not quickly tell a group of poles from a group of brits, but brits can and being obviously-polish ends up marking you in britain). This can end up resulting in polling/visibility/reporting bias on the internet, since people who are visible minorities in the country where they live may end up being collapsed into "white" without more careful consideration.
But again, this is just given due to relevance to the subject. Thanks for this post. Apologies if this was rambly or seems like condescension, not my native language and general outward communication struggles, don't have time to endlessly revise.