Cilantro is a good example for showing the stupidity of racial stereotypes.
The herb, also known as coriander and Chinese parsley, is a staple in some cuisines to the surprise of diners of varying backgrounds who report it tastes like soap. It turns out that whether you like this seasoning or want to spit it out depends on your genetics — your heritage. Yet even though there is a biological basis for the visceral reaction, these tendencies cannot be relied upon because the aggregates and averages are too false and too general. Since people likely won’t be offended by any demonstration that depends on cilantro, it is perfect to use to prove a point.
The simplest reports on cilantro are that Asians like it, but Europeans don’t. Asian Americans are like Asians, White Americans like Europeans, which accords with assumptions based on ancestry. These propensities are fact. But they are not absolutes (Mexican cuisine involves cilantro, too. It is the greenery in a red salsa.).
To begin with, there are differences among Asians by specific ethnicity and Europeans by specific ethnicity. It is a matter of percentages. Ashkenazi Jews display a propensity to dislike cilantro, but even within that community it is apparently about one in seven who hate it. A Portuguese specialty is a soup heavy on cilantro. So the categories of Asian and European are too vague. They do not quite explain enough.
More importantly, however, even within these ethnicities, there is considerable variation. Among the Asian populations that cook with cilantro, there are more than a few individuals who do not want it in their dishes if they have a choice. Among the European populations that do not boast recipes calling for cilantro, there are more than a few individuals who enjoy it or at least tolerate it.
The same can be said of all distributions along a bell curve. A generation ago, when demagogues revived discredited theories about bell curves, people were outraged about the public policy suggestions that followed. They also could have objected about the poor evidence the claims had at their foundation. The supposed formula has been repeated by those trying to justify or excuse both discrimination and disparities. Socioeconomic status is correlated to intelligence scores; and intelligence scores are correlated to race. Accordingly, any gap between haves and have-nots is natural and ought not be regarded as problematic.
For the sake of argument, even if the propositions are accepted, the conclusions do not follow. Suppose that wealth were related to IQ, which in turn were related to identity (There are many additional arguments based on objective criteria: the other variables, such as inherited status, that count; the biases of IQ tests; and the uncertainty of background assigned by skin color.).
