In general, it's true compared to other metals. Compared to other materials in general (e.g., glass) it's certainly not true. Over the scale of a thousand years, there could be a big difference between something that is corrosion resistant (stainless steel) and something that doesn't corrode at all.
But are you suggesting a non corrosive material would outlast stainless steel? Otherwise I don’t see the point in your distinction. Obviously your example of glass wouldn’t.
I guess I would have thought stone would last longer.
We have a lot of stone or concrete buildings from 2000 years ago still standing, and even more from 1000 years ago, so those would be safe bets. No surprises there. There's a glass window just shy of 1000 years old in a Cathedral in Germany, and other slightly younger ones scattered here and there, so glass definitely can make it. It just isn't very impact resistant, and it's also a fairly new material so there are fewer examples to draw from. Similarly, materials like Bronze would do just fine over 1000 years, and have done so in the past, but they tend to be appropriated for new building projects even if their original building is still standing.
It's an oversimplification to merely use a single property of a material as justification for choosing it when every material choice involves many factors - hardness vs toughness vs strength, weight, cost, repairability, density etc.
Isn't this true though? Especially relative to other materials that can corrode?
It seems like you're reacting as if he said it _cant_ corrode.