I think that one should not see it like this. Racism is not about preferences, but about judgement and discrimination because of racial traits (such as skin color). I can prefer lighter or darker taint (skin color) and still accept that not all have the same skin color and accept (tolerate) that not everybody is the same. Racism is not about preferences, but racism is about intolerance, about not accepting that people are different, about expecting that everybody fits into the world I create for myself. Racism, especially where it becomes defining in the relationship of people, is often asymmetric, based on asymmetric distribution of power.

Eberhard Weber

You have given a definition of racism that I do not recognize; I am not sure I agree with it.

To move forward, we may have to step back and try and reach consensus on an acceptable definition. Otherwise we risk running in circles. For me, to prefer someone simply on complexion is an indicator of racism, perhaps a mild indicator.

Eberhard Weber I have tried to give the simplest possible example of racism.

There are two persons: Person A, and Person B.

I prefer Person A simply because she has a darker complexion than Person B.

Surely, this must be racism.

If you do not agree with this example, may I kindly request you to give a simple example so that we can agree and move forward.

Sorry Mr Joseph Tharn, what you call is not racism. Everybody can have preferences without condemning those who fit not meet his/her preferences. Racism is not about preferences, even if you define it this way.

The Webster dictionary writes about Racism

Definition of racism

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

2b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination

Nothing is written about preferences, but about the production of an "inherent superiority of a particular race",

I can prefer something, but this does not necessarily make me hate and discriminate something else. Racism operates on such principles.

So my examples of racism is that in the 19th century Europeans were seen (and many behaved) as the superior race. Black Africans were seen (and treated as Barbarians, as uncivilized, often as creatures fro whom (or which) the expression "Human" was not used. Colonialism was justified as a method to civilize uncivilized, to bring Christianity to Barbarians. In this process genocides were committed in Latin America, the slave trade brought chaos and misery to the people of (Western) Africa; European diseases decimated many ethnic groups. In the USA land was stolen to who are today the "red Indians" or in Canada the First Nations, or in Australia the aborigines.

Racism is more than to prefer one thing; racism is an ideology which has brought misery to hundreds of millions of people of decades.

The ideology of racism made Germans persecute millions of Jews, and kill many of them in concentration camps in Germany and predominately Eastern Europe. One cannot apply a concepts of giving preference to something to a concept that has rather many examples of extremely cruel histories.

Apartheid is also a form of racism. Also here the notion was not preferences, but discrimination.

Suppose there are two groups. Group A thinks that they are superior to Group B; but group B thinks they are superior to Group A.

Are both the groups racist? Please explain.

There is also the possibility that there is no “universal” definition of racism that is acceptable everywhere, and so there will be no consensus. Perhaps the idea of racism is context-specific, and depends on culture, history, religion, social norms, education and so on.

Eberhard Weber

Perhaps we can use an iterative process to arrive at a definition of racism that is mutually acceptable. We can agree on a basic core, and then disagree about some specific characteristics that need not be in the core. In this way we can make progress. We can discuss in good faith with mutual respect and understanding.

Agree?

RE: "Suppose there are two groups. Group A thinks that they are superior to Group B; but group B thinks they are superior to Group A. Are both the groups racist? Please explain."

Depends on the basis of their claim to superiority and the attributes that are claimed to derive from that basis. If A and B are ethnically diverse soccer teams in the same league, there's not much room for a racist interpretation of a team's claiming superior football prowess. (Note that such claims are not always held to be a mere matter of, and hence decidable in terms of, goals or wins.)

Eberhard Weber

There are two equally qualified persons, and I prefer to select the one with the darker complexion. I am discriminating and making a judgement.

In this selection, I am discriminating in the sense that I am making a distinction between the two persons. I am also making a judgement about the merits of the two persons. All things considered, the darker complexion person, simply due to the complexion will add diversity to my team and this is valuable.

Just a few reflections: there is a relatively clear understanding what racism is about: 1) the idea that a racial group is superior to another because the assumption that race can define people and their superiority / inferiority 2) the discrimination of people based on 1)

The example provided would mean that both groups are racists, if they put their claim on the assumption that there race is the better one. It would not be racists, if the two soccer groups which are of different racial background would assume that they are superior based on their conviction that they have the better skills in soccer. The idea of being superior needs, of course, be connected to the idea, that one racial group can be better than another. Racism thus is the notion of racial superiority, and it often leads to discrimination of other racial groups that are deemed to be inferior.