Jeremy Stangroom

But one can claim that it IS better understood that way and the definition should reflect that.

Not if definition excludes things it ought not to exclude. So, for example: black power group, committed to white genocide because of inherent genetic inferiority of white race, undertakes terroristic acts of violence against whites - on your view, not racist. That's ludicrous.

No, not at all? That is also a fairly absurd example, although I imagine that was your point. That's still a systematic form of racial violence, but the power element is missing as you say.

The structural, systemic element is missing - systematic is a red herring here. Yes, it's a reductio ad absurdum, and it works as such. Of course such a group would be correctly labelled as racist.

Right, but the definition I am putting forward captures the normative and instrumental problems of racism, and refocuses the gaze where it belongs; on people and groups of power.

Yes, that's it's advantage. But you're not merely claiming that it has an advantage. You're claiming people are making some kind of mistake if they use it in a broader way. (There are also advantages of the broader use - i.e., precisely that it doesn't negate the interpersonal).

Well sure, let's downgrade the claim to "it's an advantage". And while those interpersonal acts may be considered through the lens of race, again I think it misses the mark on the actual problem.