>Would you call a virus that predominantly infects a particular ethnic group "racist"? Depends. It would be wrong to call the virus itself racist, but it would

>Would you call a virus that predominantly infects a particular ethnic group "racist"? Depends. It would be wrong to call the virus itself racist, but it would also likewise be wrong to focus on the mechanics of infection rather than the mechanics of transmission, because the latter is the determinig factor in whether or not an outbreak occurs. Epidemics and pandemics are manufactured crises - that is, they are the result of human action. To have one effect one ethnic group more than another can conceivably be because of racist behavior. In this sense, the aspect that is important to people (whether or not one is likely to be infected) can involve racism. >Would you call alcohol or milk "racist" because Europeans, North Siberian and Alaskan peoples, and East-Asian peoples react differently to them? Again, it's not wrong to relate racism to these things because the central issue - not necessarily whether certain people can digest certain nutrients, but why nutrients that are only advantageous to certain people are privileged in food policy - can be affected by racial bias. Reminder that racism is not necessarily based on intent; disparate impact also constitutes a reasonable rationale.