&gt; I&#x27;m not sure I follow your logic - are you equating &#x27;majority establishment&#x27; with &#x27;majority&#x27;?<p>Are you not equating it? A demographic majority is an <i>enormous</i> source of power. It seems like you&#x27;re trying to avoid the dynamic and highly local nature of power by putting everything on &quot;institutions&quot; to paper over all the subtlety. Institutions are not monolithic, are not all aligned with one another, and are not the sole source of all power.<p>It is never the case that a group has no power whatsoever. Anyone who uses their power out of racial animus is a racist.<p>What you&#x27;re proposing is like when feminists claim that anyone who is for equality is a feminist, but then in practice self-described feminists care much more about the gender disparity in corporate officers than the gender disparity in prison. It&#x27;s a bait and switch. Which causes reasonable people to object to the equality-for-me-not-for-thee feminism and start a civil war with other people who also actually want equality, because the leaders lie about who they are and what they want.<p>When racism is defined as &quot;power exercised under racial animus&quot; then everyone can agree that it&#x27;s wrong. As soon as you try to redefine it as &quot;power exercised by white people&quot;, you&#x27;re not going to be able to convince white people that that is wrong. Acceptance of your definition of racism will cause white people to stop accepting racism as wrong. That is not OK.