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 is a matter of defining words. It’s fine to play the game of “which word best corresponds to the phenomena”, but I prefer playing another game: what function or what purpose is this word or this definition serving in context?
It would be sad to see “racism is structural” as an excuse for people to be cynical assholes (as opposed to tactical protesters). It’s much better when it’s used to achieve an equitable and fair world.
Beyond function, there’s also another framework that could help you: complexity dynamics. Racism happens within a complex system. Within that system, there are powerful actors, constraints, and constructors. Understanding this makes it clearer why, even if polite society is polite to marginal groups, systematic discrimination in schooling, credit, and incarceration are still structural racism.
If this clicks with you and you wanna learn more, let me know and I can recommend some stuff :)