It’s pretty obvious that between groups there will be differences in phenotypes. The relevant question is how those groups are defined. The question of who is considered “black” or “white” or “asian” is a political question, not a genetic one. They didn’t give people DNA tests to see who was allowed to drink from white water fountains.
(I think that’s what people mean when they say “race is socially constructed” but I despise academic, clinical language.)
So when black people (as determined by politics not genetics) were left out of the GI bill, the explanatory factor was politics and perceived identification with a group, not actual genetic differences with it.
[0] https://americananthro.org/about/policies/statement-on-race/
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them.
What I don't agree with is his claim that these ideas have to come only from a conservative stance.
Sometimes, there is only a very narrow gap between Nazi propaganda and niche porn.
They look at the crusades, trans Atlantic slave trade, genocide of the indigenous people of the Americas and go "hmm, why are all these brown people so violent"
While watching a documentary like 'The World at War' I kept asking myself how these people could live like this, the abject poverty, complete destruction and casual brutality was completely normal to my ancestors not too long ago.
It's disheartening but it's also inspiring because it shows that change is possible and it can happen very fast if there's a social desire for it.
What the United States did to bring lasting peace to the warring European nations is a testament to that.