Very much not impossible at all. PART TWO

Agree or not with the first part, that is the type of thing we're operating on here as a basis. Well, that's vague.

The operational assumption here is that racism in the standard sense (and in our case here) only counts as racism when there is an assumed inferiority and that it's based upon race / ethnicity.    Further, it  requires that the group of people believing another group of people racially / ethnically inferior are using  that as a reason to mistreat, subjugate, discriminate against the other group.     Without all of those it's something else.




Just believing another group inferior and then doing nothing is not racism, and "mistreating" (discriminating, subjugating, etc) another group for another reason is not racism.     For the same reasons, racism wouldn't include (but might lead to) murder or genocide or torture of another group or other groups.   Those types of things might be racially-motivated or ethnically-motivated but it's also possible to have them non-racially or un-ethnically so, such as when based largely upon sex, religion, economic status, social strata, and so on.   This isn't to say there's no overlap between somebody's religion or nationality etc and their ethnicity.  Indeed, there very often is much overlap.   However, gauging side-effects or excuses or spin about a given event versus the primary reason(s) for the behavior and actions can get very tricky.

Extending these ideas would mean that reverse racism (in an inexact and literal sense) would consider another group superior and then mistreat them, consider another group inferior but give them preferential or otherwise beneficial treatment or both.   It could be elevating a group considered superior to heights of power and influence to a point even far beyond their abilities or numbers.    Essentially it can mean about anything that's not racism, making it essentially  meaningless due to its wide applicability as anything reversed or the opposite or anti-racism.  

So the question here is if it's impossible to have racism or impossible to not have racism between any two given people in some specific situation.  

That is more a social and media exercise than it is anything else.   It's clear from a great number of situations and events that racism (or broader ethnically-motivated) things can either exist or not exist anywhere at any time.   Which is to say it's very much possible people that are essentially no different at all in a biological sense (at least to outsiders, true or not, regardless of how perceived to be so internally) to be racist to each other.    Rwanda and the Tutsi versus Hutu here,  agrarian tribes and semi-nomadic tribes there.   A delusional conspiracy theorist Norwegian someplace else.   Germans, French, "Yugoslavians", "Czechoslovakians",  the Ottoman Empire,  Japan and Okinawa, the US prison population; invent your own.

If you haven't already guessed the point and the argument, be here for the last part.    If you have guessed it, why not comment?  


While we're waiting, how about a   "Portable LED Flashlight"