Defining Racism – Addressing the Discomfort
When I teach anti-racism/bystander intervention courses there can be a lot of discomfort, even among people who see themselves as allies to Black people, Indigenous Peoples and persons of colour. People with power and privilege don’t like the word “racism”, and they don’t want to admit they are racist. Sadly, when we examine our unconscious/implicit bias it reveals that most of us learned to be racist/have racist thoughts towards the Indigenous Peoples of this land (Turtle Island), Black people, and persons of colour. If we didn’t learn it from our parents, it was in literature we read, movies we watched, or advertising we were exposed to. If we can’t admit we are racist, we should at least be able to acknowledge that we have benefited from the oppression of people, even if it is not intentional, it’s the truth.
There are different types of racism: individual racism, internalized racism, and systemic racism (institutional and structural racism.) In this blog, I’m talking about individual racism, but they’re all related.
Individual racism can be defined as:
´ “Discrimination against racialized people.”
´ “Belief, action, or practice that blatantly or subtly gives value and ‘normal-ness’ to white people/whiteness, and devalues, stereotypes, and labels racialized people as ‘other’, different, or less than.”
(WIC Glossary of Terms, Alberta Municipalities)
Arguments rejecting or resisting these definitions of racism—that centre systemic power and whiteness—often stem from personal, ideological, or epistemological perspectives.
Here are some of the most common arguments I hear during my training sessions, along with counterpoints:
"Racism is about individual prejudice, not systems."
Argument: Some claim that racism is simply personal prejudice, meaning anyone can be racist, regardless of their race. They resist definitions that link racism to power structures or historical oppression.
Counterpoint: While personal prejudice exists, systemic racism operates at institutional and cultural levels, privileging whiteness. This broader definition acknowledges the structures that shape and reinforce racial inequities.
"Defining racism this way is itself racist (reverse racism)."
Argument: Some argue that defining racism as privileging whiteness is discriminatory because it excludes the idea that white people can experience racism.
Counterpoint: Racism is not just about negative feelings toward a race but about power and systemic advantage. Prejudice against white people may exist, but it lacks the institutional backing that makes racism oppressive on a large scale.
"I don’t benefit from whiteness—this doesn’t apply to me."
Argument: White individuals who have faced poverty, hardship, or personal struggles may reject the idea that they have racial privilege.
Counterpoint: White privilege does not mean an absence of struggle—it means that race has not been a barrier. A white person may face economic or social hardships, but they are less likely to face systemic racial discrimination in employment, policing, or education.
"This definition silences white people and prevents dialogue."
Argument: Some argue that framing racism this way shuts down conversations by making white people feel blamed or defensive.
Counterpoint: The goal is not to silence but to shift the focus from individual intent to systemic impact. Recognizing structural racism requires discomfort, but that discomfort can lead to meaningful change.
"This is an academic or activist redefinition, not what ‘real people’ mean by racism."
Argument: Some claim that redefining racism to include structural power is an academic exercise that doesn't reflect common usage.
Counterpoint: Language evolves, and redefining racism to acknowledge systemic inequality provides a more accurate framework for addressing racial injustice. Many human rights organizations and scholars use this definition or a very similar one.
"This creates division rather than unity."
Argument: Some argue that discussing racism in this way fosters division and guilt rather than bringing people together.
Counterpoint: Naming oppression is necessary for justice. Avoiding discussions of power and privilege does not create unity—it maintains the status quo. Addressing systemic racism allows for more meaningful inclusion and equity.
"Not all white people are the same—this treats whiteness as a monolith."
Argument: Some white individuals feel this framing unfairly generalizes all white people, assuming they all benefit equally from whiteness.
Counterpoint: While white people have different experiences based on class, gender, and other factors, whiteness still functions as a societal norm that grants advantages in aggregate. Acknowledging this does not erase individual differences.
"Other racial groups can be racist too."
Argument: Some argue that if racism is about power, then in societies where other racial groups hold power (e.g., Black-led governments, Asian-majority countries), they can be racist too.
Counterpoint: Structural racism is context-specific. In North America, whiteness has historically been centred in institutions. In different global contexts, power operates differently, and similar frameworks may apply to dominant racial or ethnic groups there.
Many of these arguments stem from discomfort with shifting understandings of racism that move beyond personal prejudice. White fragility—coined by Robin DiAngelo—refers to defensive reactions that arise when white people’s racial positioning is challenged. Overcoming this requires engagement, reflection, and a willingness to sit with discomfort.
And, there is a difference between saying, “I’m not racist” and being anti-racist. Being anti-racist is actionable. Read more about this in Ibram X. Kendi’s book, “How to be an Antiracist”.
Next week’s blog is about allyship. See you then.
Tymmarah (Tymm) Mackie, MA
Founder & President, Fostering Diverse Communities Canada
