|
|
|
|
|
|
by _manifold
1314 days ago
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, Samaritans have the same ethnic roots as Jews. The differences were more religious and ideological than racial. So with that in mind, saying the term "good Samaritan" is specifically racist doesn't really hold water. Xenophobic, maybe. The lines kind of blur when you're talking about groups that are divided by some odd combination of ethnicity, religion, and nationality. Regardless, if you look at the actual context, the Parable of the Good Samaritan is arguably meant as a message against racism and preconceived notions about people from other ethnic groups or countries. |
|
|
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (an independent government agency) [0]:
> Racism takes many forms and can happen in many places. It includes prejudice, discrimination or hatred directed at someone because of their colour, ethnicity or national origin
So, even if a difference is "ethnic" rather than "racial", it can still be "racism" (at least by that definition of "racism"), since "racism" can be based on "ethnicity" or "national origin" rather than "race".
Contemporary science does not support any distinction between "race" and "ethnicity": the distinction is just a cultural construct specific to certain societies. So culturally-specific, in fact, that it even differs between different countries in the English-speaking world: US government publications officially acknowledge a distinction between "race" (e.g. African-American) and "ethnicity" (e.g. Hispanic) – even while admitting the distinction is grounded in the particularities of US culture and history rather than anything scientific or universal. By contrast, Australian government publications studiously avoid making any official distinction between them, and in practice treat the two concepts as interchangeable.
[0] https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/ahrc_sr_2021_... PDF page 8