I would like you to expand on this point if you could.

Essentially, the institution of dictionary definition makers can be considered part of the patriarchal system by not differentiating between racial prejudice by a group oppressed by the majority, and racial prejudice by a group not oppressed by the majority.

I think it's an interesting point, but i have my reservations on different people using definitions the way it suits them.

As for your point on reverse racism, it's just a matter of words.

Exactly.

You may want to consider that these connotations you speak of are not shared by everyone.

Nonono, you misunderstand me, i'm conveying information found elsewhere by numerous people. I'm on the fence about the issue because these connotations aren't held by everyone.

Muddying the waters obscures discourse; i think racism as a word shouldn't be "taken away", I think a new word like "primaracism" that applies to the leading oppressing group could be applied to keep things simple, for example.

Personally, I don't even think that should be done, but i'm into finding some sort of common ground here.

Keeping that in mind, reverse racism would at best be a subset of racism, not actually an alternate form prejudice.

At the risk of sounding like a concern troll; i'm as opposed to the idea of watering down racism by oppressed minority groups as I am to doing the same or opposite for the oppressive group.

I've always differentiated by using the term "institutional racism" when talking about systemic oppression, and "racism" when talking about individual racial prejudice.

it should be easy to see that this is inherently counter productive to eliminating inequality and racism.

indeed. I'm with you 100%