Given that qualifier it is atypical that marginalized or minority aren't operative. Does that really pass the threshold in your mind necessary for me to be incorrect in what I'm claiming?
It's hilarious to me that the reactionary position on this (wherein people are quoting dictionary definitions and wiki articles) manifestly hinges on trivialities.
>Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the *superiority* of one race over another.
in your hypothetical about being assaulted by a black woman did you really mean that she believed herself to be of a *superior* race? or did you mean something else?
Why do people always get tripped up on this. Racism is institutional and prejudice is personal. No one is saying an arbitrary person can't be prejudiced - ask the right people and you'll get an earful about how prejudiced x ethnicity is against y ethnicity. But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions; for example there's no coordinated group of black landlords that don't rent to Asians. Would there exist such a thing if there were enough black landlords? Maybe. No one is denying that anyone can be cruel and hateful. What people do deny is that certain ethnicities have the same means to enact that cruelty. Again I don't see how this isn't manifestly obviously true.
It's hilarious to me that the reactionary position on this (wherein people are quoting dictionary definitions and wiki articles) manifestly hinges on trivialities.