No, that's not what racism means.
This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to
justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges,
rights or goods among different racial groups.
If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour" with the caveat that race is taken into account when considering a complaint, not so great.
Let me rephrase that: My dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races". It does not say anything about historical social status in its definition of "racism".
Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate can there be for ignoring its source?
Trying to correct the continuing effects of past racism can be a justification for discriminating on the basis of race. But the fact that it is a justifiable form of racism doesn't mean that it is not a form of racism.
Right now there's a lot of contention surrounding the definition of racism because the definitions in contemporary dictionaries does not reflect the understanding that racism is a structural problem. Focusing exclusively on behaviors and not on deeply rooted systems strikes victims of those unjust systems as a form of moral evasion. If you're not a committed to preserving and propagating racist systems, then you shouldn't have any problem changing the definition to one that everybody can agree on . And if you do have a problem with an insufficient definition…well, then maybe you're a part of the larger problem the people are now addressing.
One more thought on definitions; remember that the US Constitution used to define black people as 3/5th of a human being for purposes of calculating the size of congressional delegations and 0/5th for everything else. The point here is prevailing definitions encapsulate broader social conventions. When dealing with words that have become bones of contention, it's advisable to make sure you're aware of the conventions the are being included in the definitions you choose to defend.
So you say 'racism' has been co-opted by those in power? And then get angry that everyone uses this white-centric words to define the concept of racism without all the baggage of history?
Its clear you are having communication problems. You already stated the word 'racism' has been redefined by those races in power - why do you keep using it then?
If every rant about racism has to be accompanied by a long winded explanation of how the word 'racism' should really be defined you are only hurting your cause.