The problem with “anti-racism” is that it’s racism: engaging in institutional discrimination against me, based on that statistical truth about a race I happen to belong to. The whole concept of “anti-racism” is (in practice) rich Whites excusing their privilege by engaging in “cleansing” racism against poor Whites.
Racial bias + power.
I’m uninterested in your semantic game to justify that racism.
You’re not communicating with authenticity or decency, it’s just rhetoric all the way down. It’s at the breaking point where we all know you aren’t a good faith actor.
That said, I have the "right" color of skin and didn't have nearly as much issue once I removed myself from the area I grew up in (and, later, contravened that religion by exiting and keeping my worldviews private).
I completely acknowledge racial privilege can exist, and that I am a beneficiary of the setup as such, much like the dominant religions in my childhood hometown had religious privilege and the "good ole boys" network is built to serve their adherents locally.
It SUCKS to be the target of negative interaction, it sucks 100x worse for it to be environmental.
My take on the entire state of race relations is that the median person wants interruption of the "good ole boys" entrenchment. This does mean privilege gets reduced for some, which feels like persecution and evokes fear like we see from folks rallying against "CRT in schools" (though it's typically just general history being railed against).
Then we see disconnected takes like PG's "Heresy" recently, which takes the extremist positions on both ends of the horsehose as representative of the median.
I learned pretty early on that most people are fairly banal in what they want -- food to eat, roof overhead, available recreation, build a nest egg and something resembling a family. These things are at risk these days due to class division and economic uncertainty; people in the well-to-do side of things are perfectly happy to see the stress taken off themselves and projected into racial and ethnic divisions because they can afford something like security provisions.
Apologies for rambling, your comments just elicited a lot of things I don't think about all that often.
1. All race is a social (and to some degree, legal) construct. There is more variation in genes / ability / class within a single racial class than there are between racial classes.
2. The "white" race is even a social construct by this definition.
3. Society attributes certain attributes to "whiteness" or "blackness" or "coloured" as a result of its construct.
From there you may hear someone say "we should fight against whiteness" or some such, like a game of telephone. Typically the actual intent is to fight against the construct that certain values are "white" vs. other traits being ascribed to "person of colour." In short: the social construct of "whiteness" as an act of supremacy is the problem, not the colour of one's skin.
I'm not sure I have ever seriously heard the argument "white people are inherently morally guilty due to racism" but I can see how this starts to blend over time. People taking the above argument and misrepresenting or misunderstanding it could quickly devolve into a game of telephone. It's a sensitive topic so it's important to handle it with precision in our language.
But yeah, I'm not sure I've seen any serious "anti-racist" folks actually claim being white is a sin, so much as perpetuating the construct of "whiteness" as some kind of intrinsic value is the real sin. Of course, CRT is a graduate-level field that requires some degree of legal expertise, so you would have to go digging for the steelman version of the argument.