Because now people start to get rejected for loans because of their race, and that’s wrong for many obvious reasons.
Epidemiological studies tell us some diseases disproportionally affect certain groups. Should doctors dismiss this knowledge as racist and refrain from screening patients in the affected groups because they might come off as racist?
Therefore we know that correlations with any definition of ethnicity or race are spurious, because those definitions must be socially constructed, because the gene pool simply does not have the shape that race realists claim that it does.
Think in terms of contraposition. Sure, if race were real, then maybe it might make sense to talk about racial demographics. However, since race clearly is not real, any demographic correlations must be bogus. There is a much simpler explanation for why some skin colors seem socioeconomically advantaged: Because our society itself has bigoted opinions about skin colors, and has practices like redlining [4] which systematically oppress folks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_haemochromatosis
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease
I dont't think that's how we make our day to day decisions. I usually treat people as individuals because I expect to be treated the same, but it doesn't make the "tribe" features meaningless. For example I would not live in given neighborhood if its tribe is knwon for [something bad] (this also applies to my own tribe). If I have an object of value, the tribe of a person would certainly be a factor to decide whether to entrust him with it or not. I'm sure a lot of people would do the same. It's just how probabilities are tranlated by the brain.