Your only taking the part of the definition that suits you. The other part is as relevant as the other one.
Nothing in there contradicts or even substantively augments the definition I provided. It's been my experience that the dividing line between definitions of racism involves the concept of power. Since neither of us used it, I don't think there's a relevant difference between our definitions. However, should you provide good reasons to adopt yours, I'll gladly do so.
The key point is culture can be adopted, forsaken, mixed, cherry-picked, dropped altogether. Under the collectivist concept of racism, once one is born a white person, one's always a white person, burdened with any flaws or gifted with any qualities white people have supposedly been endowed with. There's no escaping, no matter how you carry yourself though life, irrespective of the content of your character. Under a racist worldview, once white, always white.
That's the fundamental difference.
Prove it, Any stats i can find stop at 2005 and 2008.
This is just bizarre, because the statistics are readily available. These have been readily available for a while now to anyone interested in these matters. Just to give you an example, take
2016 (
source). Total recorded number of homicides: 6676 (100%), total recorded number of black offenders: 3156 (47,273%). You can also take a look at the population distribution by race (
source) and by gender (
source), in order to get to the rough estimation of 6% of black males among the general population. That year the overall ratio of male to female offenders was roughly 89% males to 11% females (
source). In short, in 2016, 6% of the population, black males, roughly accounted for 42% of homicides. Please bear in mind, this figure doesn't even discount children and the elderly.
The source I provided has yearly charts. Additionally, you can download the Excel file and work out specific percentages yourself.
You do realize statistics can be racists. For example if you only focus on race, the stats will show that one type of skin color has more criminality than the other.
I categorically reject the assertion stats can be racist.
In fact, only a racist will believe facts are racist.
A non-racist individual who stands by reason and logic believes that, ultimately, reality is not racist and therefore that truthful stats will bear that out. A racist, however, does believe one race is inherently inferior or superior to the other and that stats will reveal that.
The freakin' irony.
A stat that shows different criminality rates among races is not inherently racists
because it is
not making the claim that the difference is rooted in race itself. Again, countless other explanations can be offered as reasons, such as aspects of dominant urban culture, and until race is specifically singled out and claimed as the explanation no epitaphs of "racist stats" can reasonably be offered. Race and culture are two very different facets, as already summarized.
This notion that stats can be racist is anti-scientific and fundamentally anti-truth, and needs to be repudiated.
Stats can misrepresent, be truncated, partial, fraudulent, skewed, etc. That's an epistemological problem, for sure. The solution, however, is better, more comprehensive stats, not dismissing stats as "racist".