It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people. That’s like directly derived from the very definition of those words.
It can still be morally correct though!
You’re being a dolt. They’re there because of their quasi sovereign pre invasion nationality, you see it as color they see it as an attachment to the land.
Yes, that’s why I say it can still be morally correct to create this position in parliament. Quite frankly I think they should get more than just this one position. It boggles the mind how land can just be taken and the native population just ignores like this for centuries.
But if it’s based on race it’s racist. That’s a fact. Unless you redefine racist to be only against minorities. Or only against non-white people. But for me racism is action based on the race of people.
As opposed to what exactly, non humans?
Your delineation of race is bigoted and frankly stupid. Also, morally incorrect.
My edit didn’t go through. It should read
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people.
(I blame the federated nature of lemmy for that, but in the future I need to double check if any corrections do reach the intended server.)
I am aware that some people think racism can only be done by white people or by the majority. My definition of racism is that it is action based on the race of people.
I’m from Germany and quite frankly, I think the concept of race is indeed stupid. We got rid of that concept and its everyday use 75 years ago. But it is commonly used in the anglosphere (no doubt due to the big influence of the USA and it’s domestic problems with african-american citzens), so that’s the word I use in internet discourse as well.
