Your argument is a poor one and ignores common sense and the scientific method.
When you balance and compare things you have to control variables. Race is a variable and to control it, you take a vanilla human with +1 to all stats and use it for every class. That way everyone can get 16 in...
Then drop the +1 to the stat. I'm assuming most people doing these charts are just adding it to make the stat an even number.
Long-sword proficiency is a much more specific racial trait that is much harder to come by than a simple +1 to your main stat.
And saying "Monk does good damage as long...
You don't balance a class with the hopes the player is going to pick a race that can use long-swords...
So the monk in this chart is actually worse at damage than suggested.
When you are doing a DPR chart comparing classes, you do not take race into account.
Removing the long-sword from this chart would drop the damage of the monk down.
The monk optional feature reads:
"The chosen weapon must meet these criteria:
The weapon must be a simple or martial weapon.
You must be proficient with it.
It must lack the heavy and special properties."
Monks are not proficient with long-swords.