There are many useful things to be talked about. Individual prejudices, individual behaviors, and self-reinforcing societal power systems all get called "racism". Quibbling over which arbitrary word is bound to which concept looks like an avoidance of actually grappling with the issues.
The issue at hand is that claiming that only white people can be racist is itself a racist statement according to the traditional definition of racism. Even with moo's definition of racism, the statement cannot be true in states where non-whites are the majority and hold power.
Again, I am not claiming that whites face racial oppression across the US. That's silly. This is whole thread only exists because of people twisting the definition of words to suit a purpose.
The same behavior is recorded in the political histories of Ancient Greece. It's nothing new. I'm just calling it out as the political trick that it is.
As I posted above quoting from Wikipedia:
"One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." To scientifically address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging the relevance of power to the perpetuation of racism being institutionally enforced. To deny the power component of racism is to make racism an argument about individual behavior which will never progress beyond "he said she said" which is not how science is done. Science is not done at the individual level but at the group level.
If you call a person a racist, you're saying 1) that he has certain views about race, and you may also be saying 2) that he takes certain actions in line with those views. Saying someone can't be racist without power is saying "if criteria for definition 2 aren't met, then criteria for definition 1 are not met," which is silly.
Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
How does your point 1 above satisfy the "subordinates an individual" criteria for the definition of racism by the US Civil Rights Commission? It doesn't! For your point 2, to subordinate someone you need power or institutional power backing you up. If you don't have institutional power then the person you're bothering ignores you, tells others and gives you a bad reputation with people, takes you to civil court, calls the police and you are then in jail. The repercussions commensurate with your actions. I argue that your point 2 does not subordinate a white person beyond that of being attacked by an individual or small group of people because you do have recourse by law to defend yourself or have them arrested. The same with any physical assault. The significance of racism is when the person may not have recourse to defend themselves or protection by the law because of racial bias then they are put in a position of subordination and controlled.
Then you think racism can be fixed by just condemning publicly open displays of racial prejudice. So if a Michael Richards torpedoes his career by doing a public racist rant, I guess you would argue that is proof our society is not racist instead of saying that only public displays of racism is unseemly. Racism is institutionally perpetuated, that is where you fix things. Otherwise you limit condemnation of racism to public displays instead of finding the source of group behavior.
The references for that Wikipedia statement are both from the last five years. One reference is an article titled "Only white people can be racist." That's hardly an unbiased definition of a much older term.
Since 1933, the definition of racism according to Merriam-Webster has been "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Why the more recent trend of redefining a clear term to include results of racism when institutionalized by those in power? That seems disingenuous and counterproductive.
I wouldn't look to 1933 white people to define racism. Yes, the Merriam-Webster definition stinks. Go with the US Civil Rights Commission's definition. They are more researched and sensitive to the issue.
Here is the Civil Rights Commission's definition again:
"Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally."
In case you think I'm making a non sequitur again, the power component comes from the word "subordinates."
Racism
Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
How is a white person subordinated and controlled in the U.S. based on race to where that white person does not have recourse to the the law, the courts, the police, them finding another job, or just avoiding the offending person? If you have a problem with a person you avoid them or address the law. Racially oppressed people don't escape the situation so easily hence why racism is debilitating.
Nobody said that white people are oppressed. There is some kind of communication breakdown going on because you keep accusing myself and other individuals of claiming that we as white men are afraid of being oppressed. No one under my comment you responded to said that, so please stop acting like we did.