Not really. Middle Easterners are generally considered Caucasian, but they are not necessarily considered “white.”
Who was it that said Mary must have been black since her lineage (part of it) came from Egypt? What are the chances you’re black if you’re an Egyptian back then? Small, I would think.
Again, by a very strange definition of “white”, the same one under which Alexandre Dumas (pere or fils) would have been considered “black” and under which the Irish needed to “become white”.
Be that as it may, I think that Nava is correct in pointing out that Simplicio should not have stated what he did as if it were fact, and that he should at least have told us what his definition of “white” was. I, too, looked at that original post with a bit of confusion and skepticism.
The Coptic Church may have been formed as early as AD42, and became a separate entity in AD451, and was active well to the south of Egypt, including Nubia, the Sudan, etc.
Not only that, but all their Popes have been exclusively African 
Again, this is not necessarily the case. The two cases you cite are not really comparable. Many Middle Easterners (though of course not all) are considerably darker skinned than the majority of Europeans. By what definition is this guy “white” (rather than just Caucasian)? Asian Indians are usually considered Caucasian, but many are certainly not “white” by any definition that doesn’t equate being white with being Caucasian.
