You switched halfway through your argument from using "supremacy" to mean "oppression of 'lesser' races" to using "supremacy" to mean "which race do you tend to find in leadership positions".

There are two huge problems with this. First, I can't even tell what you mean. Second, whatever it is that you're arguing, your argument is flawed.

It makes about as much sense as this: "A chair has four legs and is to be sat on. Tamara can't chair this committee because she has only two, and won't let me sit on her."

You're probably committing the naturalistic fallacy too, but at this point I can't even tell.

Why don't you try again, keeping a consistent definition for how you use your words?