Also, "colorblinded" people like you are the ideologues. Group-level differences are just the truth. Acknowledging them isn't ideological. Denying them is.

I never said that group level differences don't exist. You're constructing a strawman.

And yes, I'm an American ideologue. The United States is a propositional nation built on a Liberal Revolutionary philosophy. Not a racial one, not even an ethnic one. That's the fundamental basis of what the American Experiment is. The Americans are not an English people, they are not Anglo-Saxons, and they stopped being Anglo-Saxons the moment they declared their independence. Fundamentally, it was a realization that the English couldn't actually live up to the standards of liberty they had set for themselves, and and didn't really want to. So the American Experiment was to see if you could build a nation on the idea of a Liberty built around a Lockean perspective.

All you are able to do is build upon the concerns that people had about who could perpetuate a Liberal Federal Republic. The first obvious answer was protestant anglos, but the next question was without a unifying religion, crown, or ethnic base (since the US was already multi-ethnic even in 1775) could a nation built on ideology survive. The answer has since been uncategorically: yes. Originally the concerns were whether indians, germans, catholics, irish, and freed blacks could actually replicate what is effectively summarized as "the protestant work ethic". In each case, despite the efforts of racial progressives like yourself, each population that adopted American values integrated without issue. Balkanizing each group and preventing them from integrating into America is what perpetually caused problems, because as you balkanize and divide people for your own political purposes; they are unable to unify along the uniform American proposition on individual liberty, because you keep demanding a focus on collectivism.