[ttt0]

I'm not quite sure if I understand what they're trying to do. Are they trying to say that it isn't just skin color? That's the entire point of "racism", that it's not just visible characteristics.

By the way, why there is no author?

[Zababa]

> That's the entire point of "racism", that it's not just visible characteristics.

The way I learned it is that racism is believing that races exists AND that there is a (one dimensional) hierarchy between these races. Europeans are better at lactose tolerance than Africans and Asians. That's a fact. In no way that makes them have more worth as humans being or put them "above" the others. Believing that would be racism.

[ttt0]

There certainly are individuals who believe that, just like there are some Black individuals (Black nationalists/Israelites) who believe the exact opposite - that Whites are "inferior" and Blacks are "superior". But at core this really isn't what nationalist/separatist movements are about. It's that races are distinct both genetically and culturally - not inherently better or worse, just different - and incompatible with each other. Furthermore, if you look at the current and historic nationalist movements, the motivation is rarely (if ever) "we're superior, they're subhumans, why won't we just kill them", but perceived oppression from the other side.

[desktopninja]

Tribalism! :)

[elb2020]

> By the way, why there is no author?

Because it's the Economist, they never run a byline on any of their published content, normally.