I could keep going, but I'm interested in your responses.
Fundamentally, I think you're confusing a character's history and culture for their class.
Race is a mix of your genetics and cultural upbringing.
Backgrounds are your personal life. Where you a noble? Farmer? Have to live on the streets for a living?
Class is a lot like your current profession. Your job. What you do for a living NOW.
Your discussion of how "barbarians" have shamans and the like? That has nothing to do with the CLASS barbarian. In fact, the name barbarian is really a misnomer, and more of a callback to some rather questionable decisions in the past. Currently, the barbarian class is a primal warrior that relies on some bits of mysticism and/or lots of adrenaline to push their bodies beyond the normal limits, rather than focusing on technique. That's your job within your culture - you're a warrior with a specific style of fighting. Someone else in your culture would be the shaman (druid, cleric or bard), they'd have a different role than yours.
Likewise, with Ranger. There's more than just being a "stealthy woodsman." You're a HUNTER. Hunters stalk prey, thus they get the stealthy bits. Hunters need to locate their prey and track them down. Thus the woodsman angle as well as the survival bits. Even the bits of druid magic revolve around things like setting traps and hunting techniques, with a dash of Beast Mastery (another extension of being a kind of hunter). Hunting is what you do. Fighters, even if they're aware of how to survive in the wilderness, aren't hunters. That's not their shtick. Even a "druid knight" isn't the same thing. None of them are professional hunters like the Ranger.
While I'm sure the mechanics of race and background will shift around, I'm fairly sure they're going to remain the same three differences. We'll probably see more variety of backgrounds, but I dont' think they'll be merging them or getting rid of them. That's a step back from what people want. Its moving towards 3e, not towards 6e.