Redefining words like Racism is a common tactic of social activists to create an in-group and "all the other idiots". I reject that artificial redefinition.
We all understand racism. Its when somebody puts somebody else down based solely on their race. That's it. The other stuff has other names, like "institutional racism" for instance.
Getting upset about the definition of words when they don't fit your privileged view of the world is a common tactic of those in places of privilege when equality seems to attack their base of privilege.
You don't understand racism at all. That's not even the dictionary definition of it. Any of the dictionary definitions of it.
Racism is believing that one race is superior and basing the oppression of other races upon that belief.
Thus, the oppressed cannot be racist. They can be intolerant or bigoted or any of many other things; but they cannot be racist because they are not coming from a position of privilege to even be able to oppress.
I'll bite: it seems like you don't understand racism at all, either.
A society split in "race-based" groups that co-operate towards common goals on an equal basis is still "racist". There are no oppressed and no oppressors, but the concept of "race" is still built-in and hence produces a racist society. (For the record, there are several examples of this sort of approach in history, some even ongoing.)
The only way to avoid this trap is to reject the concept of "race" as anything that you can meaningfully define. This has to be done by everyone, be them oppressed or otherwise.
>"win" arguments when they don't understand your new terminology
Let me try
You don't understand oppression at all. Oppression is when you put flower petals between pages of a book to flatten them. Thus, humans cannot be oppressed.
