This does not require ethnicity at all.

If someone is discriminated because of an ethnicity they don’t actually have (let’s say a Mexican being targeted as an “arab”) should they not get compensation ?

According to your logic, you need ethnicity to give compensation which means that you require victims to have a specific ethnicity to be recognised, but it is absurd. What makes victims victims is what they went through, not the reason they suffered abuse.

And this doesn’t even apply to colonization as in this case most of the times the former colony is now a country, and as such you can give compensation to the country and its citizens, no ethnicity required.

Either way, ethnicity is not needed.

I think that being a colonizer is not something a government should be. So yes, definitely, such a treaty is bad.

A government should be treating people as equally as possible. Ethnicity only brings unnecessary division.

Well, american culture making such a big deal about ethnicity even when “positive” did influence a lot.

I never understood why the N word is racist because of history, but then being black makes it fine to say. It’s still linked to a racist background, but it seems like americans consider that minorities can never be or do anything racist.

And I mean, in 99% of cases the concept of ethnicity is (or at least is used in a way that is) purely racist. Apart from a few studies on genetic specificities, it has no purpose at all, and definitely no purpose in daily lives and governments.

What’s weird is that no one with a sane mind would say that a woman saying “women are bitches and shouldn’t be able to work” isn’t misogynistic, but when it comes to racism people are making up exceptions left and right.

If you focus on ethnicity, chances are you are racist, no matter the justification you put behind it.

The magic of marketing