Political Correctness has foreshadowed the "Post-Truth" movement, the inability to call a spade a spade or make decisions or predictions based on data that might possibly offend a group of people.
We know that purebred dogs - most having existed a mere hundred years or less - are genetically inferior; that they are generally stupid, sickly, prone to early death, those qualities they were bred for as well highlighted and amplified all the bad traits. Like the British Monarchy, any of the fancy European Aristocracies, with their selective inbreeding until they became weakened and anemic...
We allow that different nations have different advantages in sports largely due to their genetic (to some extent "racial") heritage.
...yet suggest for a minute that those same evolutions and adaptations that made a select group of people better swimmers or runners might have in some way made them "inferior" - aka intellectually, socially, or otherwise, and you're a racist. This is not good science. We've been breeding dogs - selectively, with the intent to create breeds - for only a couple of hundred years, tops, the results are in. To suggest that a group genetically isolated for 100, 1000, even tens of thousands of years, might have evolved some traits that show poor adaptive value to current civilization and circumstance labels you a racist.
I'm not particularly for this "racism" thing, of far more concern to me are the Cultural Liberals that would find value in the headhunters of Borneo, invite them into the country and feed them their children. Clearly that's a slight exaggeration, but only slight. The point of the argument is that as long as we continue to deny our differences we are denying the truth, and we were in the post-truth movement a long time before Donald Trump came to office...