The problem that I've seen here is that no one can agree on a definition of racism. There is an academic definition but most people ignore it when it suits them. I constantly ran into this issue in my cultural diversity class. Students who would take at face value something they read on the internet would hotly contest the definition of racism in the textbook because it didn't include them.
I'll be interested to see if anyone takes the bait.
I'd say that racism could be defined thusly:
The targeting of a person for the purpose of predatory activity, based on the color of their skin or ancestry.
Should not the same be true if targeting is not happening for the same reason?
(Example: A while ago got told that an absolute brat (5 yo) and his mother could not be addressed for his misbehaviour in the shop, because we could be insulting a whole ethnic culture with that. His sisters are very well behaved, and are kept in control. The boy is like a spoiled king allowed to do anything, including demolishing shop stuff. To me it taking an entire culture not serious as responsible people.)
When groups form, either voluntarily or involuntarily, there will be good things happening in those groups, and bad things. Both specifically belonging to this group. Sometimes targeting may need to be more specifically aimed at that group.
Lots of countries have one group of second generation immigrants with a significant higher percentage of schizophrenia. (different groups per country) Not being aware of that, or not wanting to act on the awareness, because of being afraid of seen as racist is wrong. Acting towards that group, as if all of them are likely to become schizophrenic is equally wrong.
Finding out what it is that such a significant higher amount of individuals from this particular group, in this specific country, is important. It will mean targeting specific interaction of a group and the major country structure they are in.