O, come on, this is so 21st century liberal bubble PC.
(I don't usually do politics, but @bh started this, thus it must be permitted in this case and I'd rather discuss than flag anyway)
Every projection of a 3D-curved surface onto a flat plan is obviously imperfect. Mercator's has been eminently useful for navigation purposes, which was a major reason for making world maps in the 16th century - Mercator, or by his real (Flemish/Dutch) name: Geert de Kremer (English equivalent: Gerry Merchant), lived from 1512 through 1594. A dweller of the Low Countries myself (and a liberal btw), I feel inclined to defend his legacy against unjustified disqualifications.
It would be fair to say that the widespread continued use, even throughout much of the 20th century, of the Mercator projection for general-purpose geographical maps - despite the supposed awareness of distortions in the size of areas to the detriment of what 's presently called the Global South (and, at least theoretically, to the advantage of indigenous peoples of the polar area ) – reflects a colonial (geocentric, arrogant, insensitive) mentality on the part of the dominant actors, i.e. editors, educators, politicians and others, mostly in Europe and North America.
That doesn't make the projection itself racist, though. Nor does it detract from the historical, monumental value of the Mercator projection. Of course, nowadays, anyone who let themselves trick into believing a Mercator projection based world map is a true representation of regional proportions, are either idiots or fools (including flat-earthers ).
Something to chew on: what if a different, equal-area, projection would have been predominantly used for navigation throughout the Colonial Age, and would thus have been instrumental in "Western" (= Northern) dominance of the Global South (which is mostly in the Middle) .. would that projection have been called "racist", too?