I hear your point, funkdaddy, and I agree that the definitions of words matter. But I would argue the opposite is happening. Part of racism’s definition is hate. It’s not pleasant, but it’s there.
People are very good at rationalizing the ugly out of sight. But the ugly is still there.
I think, perhaps, that the historical fiction @Jeruba cited is an apt example of such rationalization. In a fictionalized reality, people get to define the rules. They get to idealize. They get to make the effects of oppression a natural hierarchy of the world, so that it doesn’t seem so distasteful. But that doesn’t make the rationalized version real.
In lived history, racism needs hate. It needs people to get angry when the artificially contrived “natural balance” of one superior race starts to slip. It needs people to get angry when those who are “beneath” them try and say, “No, I’m not. I’m your equal.” It needs people to dehumanize, to distance, to believe themselves superior.
Someone can benefit from racist systems, or the echoes of racist systems, without being racist them self. They got born lucky.
But someone can’t hold onto racist views without harboring some of the hate that goes along with them.
That doesn’t make them a lesser person. That doesn’t make them evil. But if they don’t want to hold onto the hate, they need to address those views in full. Rationalizing out of sight the bits they don’t like doesn’t actually address the problem. It might even make it worse, because it’s now harder to address.
Sorry for so many posts almost back to back. I’ll take a step back now.