Alternatively, you can have a fully safe language, and then to get certain things done you add fundamentally unsafe FFI[1]. Or you use IPC to a process written in an unsafe language. Again, you're "back in C++ land".

It seems like your complaint is that Rust is referred to as a safe language. Which is fine; it's more correct to use the phrase "in safe Rust" rather than assuming that "in Rust" fully implies "safe". That is true, but that's a crack in a sidewalk compared to the chasm of difference between Rust and C++. Why obsess over that crack?

Should we all refer to "Python without FFI or any extensions written in C or another unsafe language" instead of "Python", to avoid asserting that Python-as-it-is-used is a safe language?

[1] Assuming it's FFI to an unsafe language, and that's the main purpose of FFI.