the title alludes to the “Anglo-Alliance” which the member states of (England, Canada, Australia, and the United States) have only ever been terrible towards indigenous peoples, the Anglos are hated on every continent by at least one group. “in the DNA” alludes to this long history. The title isn’t literal.
the language we use actually matters, and while I understand where the author is coming from (and agree that they’ve treated indigenous people terribly), the statement remains racist. one shouldn’t casually label a whole race like this even if they’re speaking figuratively. “brutality is embedded in Anglo-Saxons’ DNA” just takes the attention to the wrong thing, the race, instead of imperialism and colonialism.
Anglos are not a race though, and certainly not a group that suffers from oppression. Also the term DNa doesnt appearing the text at all, it was clearly chosen to get attention (and its working).
Asian is not a race either, but anti-Asian hate is racist.
certainly not a group that suffers from oppression.
racism is discrimination based on race, at least that’s how I define it.
Also the term DNa doesnt appearing the text at all
I know, as I said, I agree with the article. I’m just saying the title of the article is terrible, because it’s racist.
it was clearly chosen to get attention (and its working).
so if I say the n-word to get attention, others shouldn’t call me out?
I don’t see why we can’t agree that saying “brutality is in some ethnic group’s DNA” is racist. wouldn’t you call me out if I said “being exploited is in indigenous peopls’ DNA”? it’s a figure of speech you say? or indigenous “isn’t a race”?
the title alludes to the “Anglo-Alliance” which the member states of (England, Canada, Australia, and the United States) have only ever been terrible towards indigenous peoples, the Anglos are hated on every continent by at least one group. “in the DNA” alludes to this long history. The title isn’t literal.
the language we use actually matters, and while I understand where the author is coming from (and agree that they’ve treated indigenous people terribly), the statement remains racist. one shouldn’t casually label a whole race like this even if they’re speaking figuratively. “brutality is embedded in Anglo-Saxons’ DNA” just takes the attention to the wrong thing, the race, instead of imperialism and colonialism.
Anglos are not a race though, and certainly not a group that suffers from oppression. Also the term DNa doesnt appearing the text at all, it was clearly chosen to get attention (and its working).
Asian is not a race either, but anti-Asian hate is racist.
racism is discrimination based on race, at least that’s how I define it.
I know, as I said, I agree with the article. I’m just saying the title of the article is terrible, because it’s racist.
so if I say the n-word to get attention, others shouldn’t call me out?
I don’t see why we can’t agree that saying “brutality is in some ethnic group’s DNA” is racist. wouldn’t you call me out if I said “being exploited is in indigenous peopls’ DNA”? it’s a figure of speech you say? or indigenous “isn’t a race”?