system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: "Racism" defined as "racial prejudice + power" is a poor definition

Let me start by saying I'm a linguistic descriptivist, not a prescriptivist. I don't think definitions can be "wrong" - usually, they can be widespread and useful for communication, or they can be idiosyncratic and "harmful" for communication. In the case of jargon and technical speech, words can be carefully defined for a particular use case or domain in a way that might differ from their usage in common language.

All that said, I'm not convinced that "racism" as "racial prejudice + power" is a useful construct for everyday speech. My biggest problem with it is that it fails to capture important information about a changing culture. Observe the following situations:

(I will represent "racial prejudice + power" as racism/ist(1) from here on out.)

**Situation 1: Nazis before they take power**

The Nazis are antisemitic, and when they controlled all the major institutions in Germany it is obvious they are racist(1). However, what about before they held major power? In 1918, were the Nazis racist against Jews?

Now, you could say that German society at the time was still antisemitic, so even though the Nazis weren't themselves in power, they were still racist(1), because the people in power in German society were antisemitic, but I find this a little weaselly.

**Situation 2: Overseas Chinese in Malaysia**

In Malaysia, Chinese immigrants represent a market dominant minority, or middle-man minority. They are richer on average than native Malaysians, and quotas have been added to Malaysian universities to keep Chinese immigrants from completely dominating the university system in Malaysia relative to native Malaysians.

Now, are the Malaysians racist(1) against Chinese people? If money and education are a form of power, then it seems like the overseas Chinese in Malaysia, as a better educated and richer minority, arguably have more power than the average Malaysian. If political power is the relevant power, then it's likely that Malaysians have more power than Chinese people because they outnumber them and Malaysia is a contitutional monarchy with weak democratic elements.

Who can be racist(1) against who in this situation? Can ordinary Malaysians not be racist(1) at all, because the country is often considered a flawed democracy so even though a Malaysian monarch holds the highest position of power, Malaysians generally don't hold power in that society? (The difference between "The people in power are Malaysian" and "Malaysians are the people in power.")

**Situation 3: An African American who is antisemitic**

If an African American somehow ends up as a raging antisemite (denies the Holocaust, but thinks it would have been a good thing if it had happened, thinks Jews control everything, etc.) then can we call their views racist(1)?

In traditional exegesis surrounding racism(1), African Americans can't be racist against white people, because while they might have racial prejudice, they don't have power. But what about racism against other non-white minorities?

(If you consider all Jewish people white, then substitute Koreans or some other non-white and non-Black minority.)

Black people still in theory lack institutional, structural power to harm these minorities, but there might be an argument that they're going with the flow of racist(1) ideas in society. Since their prejudice runs in the direction of structural racism(1) in society, shouldn't it be possible for black people to be racist(1) against Korean people?

And if they can be racist(1) against Korean people, then that seems to undermine some aspect of the "racial prejudice + power" model, or at least require a rethinking of what "power" even means in the model.

**Situation 4: A homeless white beggar who hates black people**

I don't think there are any arguments about whether a homeless white man who camps or squats on the city streets and only survives off of what he can beg has institutional power. He has none. Someone could murder him, and they'd have decent odds of getting away with it. (This has frequently been the MO of serial killers - if you kill the "dregs" of society, then you can get away with it for a long time, because the police just don't care.)

Now, what if a homeless white beggar hates black people. Is this racism(1)? It seems like it's not - this white beggar has no power for the racism(1) to obtain.

**Situation 5: A black CEO who only promotes black people, and hires as few white people as possible**

Suppose there was a small company with a black CEO, and he had an anti-white bias. Is he racist(1) against white people? The traditional answer is no, because he has no structural power.

But isn't running a company a form of structural power? I don't see how we could say women being passed up for promotions in a particular company, or companies failing to hire minorities isn't sexist or racist(1) if we don't admit that a single company can wield structural power - at least on a small scale.

Why would we limit ourselves to describing "structural power" in terms of society on the whole, or as general trends in broader society?

It seems like we'd be unnecesarily cutting off or simplifying our analysis if we limit ourselves in this way. Can't a person in power (which a CEO certainly is) use that power to help or harm the careers of those beneath him? Why is this not a form of racism(1)?
gpt
Let's be honest, this dumb definition is a way to hand wave away racism towards certain races. White people and Asians in particular.   


Im sorry, but if you tweet "Kill all White people" or "Asians can't experience racism, there's too many of them!" then you're a racist. No, not a reverse racist, a plain old "hate people because of the colour of their skin" pos racist. 

I don't care if your ancestors were slaves, or if the US is run by corrupt white men. You are an individual deciding you hate an entire group of people due to how they were born. That is not okay.