>>49866857its bait and a shit thread (why am i here?) but i will also answer you seriously. most all the people who are part of what you could call the "main stream anti racism" believe that. the definition has been changed specifically so only whites can be racist. to be specific, they contend that somehow only whites have "institutional power." the idea that in, lets say china or india, countries with over a billion of their race, with governments fully stacked with their race, police force of their race, that still those races somehow cannot be racist (or actually they will say they can be, but only to blacks), reveals the absurdity and true intentions of the phrasing. the same is true of "privilege" which again is suppose to be institutional power, yet in those countries somehow only whites still have it. "privilege" in the way its described, shouldnt be classified at all as race, but as "majority." an indian individual has "privilege" in india, for example, but not elsewhere. that would make sense, but its not the formula used, because the intention is not actually to worry about curtailing all power, just of the race they dislike
