While I think a lot of the points you articulated have merit, I feel that your description of the “current” or “more-accurate” definition of racism - in terms of the government needing the same racist values ingrained in their foundation or practice - a bit foggy. It’s misleading in a sense because throughout history many countries have been anti-(insert ethnicity/race/colour/nationality here). For example, during World War II in countries like the U.S, Canada and Britain there was prejudice towards the American-Japanese and American-Italian which led to hundreds being placed in interment camps. What about anti-semitism? For more than 2000 years cultures and other countries have expressed animosity towards Jews. There are millions of examples of different ethnicities, races, nationalities etc. being oppressed throughout history and by other cultures and countries. So, my point simply put is, where do you draw the line with what can and can’t be considered racist in terms of this more refined definition? I’m not saying your argument isn’t valid, I just think that more detail to outline what racism is (and where & by who it’s racist), is necessary.