The "white" part is unnecessary, as we don't tend to racially classify our population, or we don't use it as a hate tool as in the US, we have better ways to hate each other: Income level, political ideology, etc.
Once upon a time (even up to the latter part of the 20th century) that would have been considered by most in the West[1] as a laudable achievement, and in Chile it still largely is considered so, AFAIU. Not the eradication of indigenous people's per se (which is conveniently glossed over or minimized), but in the social equality wrought by the strong cultural homogenization through waves of immigration.
But the West in the 21st century has put much more value on diversity and on preserving cultural and ethnic identities, calling into question the morality of Chilean national identity. In other Andean nations skin tone is still very much a thing; not necessarily negative--i.e. being more brown isn't necessarily negative--but nonetheless something that can figure prominently in both social and friendly discourse.
Just thought I'd mention it. Not trying to cast value judgments, but it's worthwhile to note that Chile is very much in a different place than the rest of the West in how it contextualizes these issues.
[1] Chile being politically and culturally Western no less than France or the U.S.
Only minority identities, and only the approved ones. The West's "noble savage" narratives are almost as offensive as how it treats Wallonia or the Basques. And America loves you if you're Kurdish, but if you're a Yezidi woman they'll prosecute you for being a sex slave (forced concubinage to Da'esh apparently counts as material support of terrorism).
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/09/immigration-terrorism-pr...
That's utter bullshit.
— Xenofeminism
When Denali National Park was first created, most Alaskan locals hated the idea. Today it is quite popular in the state and Alaskans are generally proud of it.