I think it's pretty clear that DNA is just a symbolic term for "culture" or a similar concept, things that are NOT set in stone like DNA and can absolutely be changed with enough will. There isn't an oppression gene and the article does not insinuate that anyone is "born" an oppressor but they ARE born into a society that without change, will turn them into oppressors.

So no, it's not racist toward Anglo Saxons.

Yeah I find it strange that so many ears perked up at the possibility of racism towards anglo-saxons.

There is a long and tragic history of white people, particularly anglo-saxons, violating the sovereignty of nations, raping, murdering, and profiteering. To say it's in the DNA, this is true in a figurative sense. But what does this wording really accomplish? When open to interpretation, these statements agitate reactionaries and make it harder to educate. It's just unconstructive.

Edit: Please notice I did not say to educate reactionaries. That's not what I mean at all.

ah, it's just getting worse. we're on the same side (at least regarding this issue), yet we can't agree on such a simple thing.

This article is about how the US and Canada are shifting the blame for the boarding schools that killed thousands of natives for generations and the forced assimilation of those people.

I whole-heartedly agree that this subject needs more attention. what has happened is beyond anything I can describe, and it hasn't even happened long ago, so the "it was previous generations" excuse doesn't work. it's hard evidence that the government and church are corrupted as hell, and don't deserve their position.

be upset that the title alludes to DNA I guess. It's real easy to find the author's use of the term "DNA" in the title upsetting when you're not in the hundreds of indigenous groups who've been forced into generations of oppression at the hands of Anglos.

how is this relevant? and how does it justify the title?

It's a provocative title, it's meant to catch your eye.

it doesn't make it ok, making racist statements to get our attention to an important thing is still wrong. I would also add that if the author's intentionwas to highlight the crime commited by North American countries, they're failing miserably, all we're talking about is the title and if it's racist or not.

Now actually read the article

I agree with the content of the article.

and understand that it's pulling attention to the treatment of indigenous people by Anglo governments.

a noble goal, but as I mentioned, it seems that they're not achieving their goal by that title.

Treatment that Anglo governments are currently trying to deny while claiming the boarding schools for the Uyghur are the same thing.

I agree, they're not in a position to lecture the world about human rights. also in my opinion, the claims that "millions of Uyghurs are held in concentration camps against their will, it's a genocide!" are utter bullshit. this article could be a great opportunity to show that these countries aren't concerned about human rights, but all it's accomplished is making us argue about its title.

I don't know what you want to achieve with the rest of your comment. but let's see your reaction if we change the title to be about another race. if someone had said "being slaves is the African's DNA", wouldn't you call it out? or would you start defending it by saying "see, DNA means history here, the writer must be trying to make us pay attention the crimes commited against Africans", "oh no, African isn't a race, so this is not racism" and "tell it to that tribe killed by those Africans!", "author is trying to get your attention, it's justified."

It's symbolic for the Anglos' culture and politics.

And no, I don't think anyone has ever found evidence of a "brutal against outsiders" gene. Prehistoric humans were actually extremely cooprerative, moreso than we are now.