There’re a number definitions of racism that preclude non-whites from the ability to be racist. Some allow for them to be considered prejudiced. Some are expressed as formulas (priviledge+power or prejutice+power) with the key concept being power. I (relatively uninformedly) refer to these as structural definitions.
The question is as the title suggests, and if you’re so inclined, please explain what you think should be made of a resolution in either direction. Is it fine if it is? Should be? Should it not? That sort of thing (and why if you’ve the time).
Would honestly prefer supporters of these definitions to respond though all are welcome; i’d be less likely to engage with your response if it reads like a shitpost in either case.
This seems a very simplistic way of seeing racism. Like, to me, complex human interactions and systems cannot be simplified in this manner:
There’s a lot more nuance than this. If you’re thinking about structural racism, the legal, the opportunity given, segregational, educational and societal (even if not official) factors of racism, that’s what I think it is, the amalgamation of various factors into the added institution of racism, as they are at the structural foundation of our modern society, not just a guy being racist, not just priviledge, but the educational access for black people or laws implicitly made to keep latinos out of legality (some examples).
It’s not that simple. Check this and this as they’re a good start.
And, to the question, in the definition I just gave, the question:
Doesn’t even make sense, as describing the ways racism prevail in society is not racist, because the definition of racism is a lot different than this.