Yep. And to add to this, Xers witnessed the idealism of the Boomers become commercialized ("selling out") in the 70s and 80s, and not adequately address the structural issues that existed.
This is a very good idea and would go a long way towards clearing up some of the confusion and conflict going on. Re-skinning "race" as "heritage" just shifts the goal-lines a bit and doesn't get at a central confusion: the differentiation between race (as a people, species or sub-scecies) and a specific culture, which is a confusion that goes back centuries and is a core factor in some of the problems we face today.
A race is a species or sub-species, subject to biology and, to some degree, history. A culture is a tradition built up over time, formed around ideological elements and subject to a wide number of factors. A race could have certain tendencies, but they are mostly/entirely based on biology, history and environment. A race "expresses itself" through those factors in the form of culture, but is not tied to any specific iteration of culture.
One is hardware, the other software (I don't love tech analogies as I think they reduce anything having to do with "soul" or "spirit," but I think the analogy works well enough in this case).
Or to put it more bluntly, an orc baby would be very different if raised within (the culture of) Lothlorien than in (the culture of) Mordor. They may still have certain "orcish" traits--say, greater strength and a (biologically-based) desire to eat meat, but their culture and attitudes would be very different.
WotC is edging in this direction but probably not going far enough, so we're going to keep on having these discussions about race vs. culture, which are largely based on the conflation of the two.
In other words, it would allow for people to use "traditional" D&D tropes like evil/brutish orcs by specifying it as their culture, but also separates the specific culture from the race, thereby defusing any racist connotations.