>>40365362
Then you have to define what racism is and why it is therefore morally wrong, to presumably think or act on it.
You have to be clear about it, because everyone using the term has different ideas and it has changed over time. The same group who police this definition will claim that it is racist to say "All lives matter" or "Its okay to be white".
This is why it is useful to define it so that you can make the more basic claim that something is in moral violation.
For example, the virtue of compassion cannot be a suicide pact. It is also important to distinguish the individual from the group. Do not claim something is "racist"; earn credibility by saying why something is immoral.
One might claim, for example, it is immoral to let someone starve and be unsheltered, and it may be true. But it has to be more than simply unfair to be realistically evaluated for practicality, and practicality matters. If you use race to define why something is unfair, then you are arguing virtue rather than realities. Being unfair or immoral does not mean something isnt the correct practical action.
It would not, for example, be incorrect to claim that Africans should drive out European manipulators of culture and economy. Even if individuals may not be responsible, the group identification is and the eminent practical consideration. Likewise with Native American rebellion from European encroachment. These are indeed race based ideas, but they are the practical solution needed for their survival.
You are not dumb either. I think your heart is in the right place but you seem, forgivably, confused about how practical matters can be addressed. Simply calling something racist is a distraction from solving real, practical problems.
