"Why isn't anyone upset that I included the Barbarians?"
Because Barbarian isn't a racial or ethnic group. It's a term basically meaning "the savage foreigner." It's demeaning to call someone a barbarian, but there's no Barbarian peoples that are offended by the use of the term.
edit:
Gonna go ahead and disagree with this point too:
"Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism. I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians..."
Your interpretation of this definition seems to be that using a negative stereotype is not racist because it's not a direct value-judgement.
That is wrong.
Even if you're not passing judgement, it is very much racist to say that (for example) Asians are all martial-artists and computer experts, or that Jews control the world, or that Native Americans are wild savages.
Why is that racist? Because it pigeonholes these people into weird and untrue stereotypes, and is therefore offensive to them.
If it's offensive to a racial group, it's probably racist.
Because Barbarian isn't a racial or ethnic group. It's a term basically meaning "the savage foreigner." It's demeaning to call someone a barbarian, but there's no Barbarian peoples that are offended by the use of the term.
edit: Gonna go ahead and disagree with this point too:
"Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism. I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians..."
Your interpretation of this definition seems to be that using a negative stereotype is not racist because it's not a direct value-judgement. That is wrong.
Even if you're not passing judgement, it is very much racist to say that (for example) Asians are all martial-artists and computer experts, or that Jews control the world, or that Native Americans are wild savages.
Why is that racist? Because it pigeonholes these people into weird and untrue stereotypes, and is therefore offensive to them.
If it's offensive to a racial group, it's probably racist.