@Alonzo: like I wrote a little while ago on my social science blog: "For millions of years the Earth has been a battlefield of territorial drives, and the winner takes all. Learn to live with it."
To put it differently: there is, in itself, nothing morally wrong with what some white Europeans did in centuries past. Your comment is nothing more than a mere social construct that probably serves your own interests. You cannot fight racism, which is a mechanism based on invalid social constructs, by replacing those social constructs with other invalid social constructs. (ETA: invalid in an epistemological way, for even an untrue social construct can be effective in accomplishing certain goals and as such be evolutionary valid).
So how do we arrive at valid insights about current day racism and how to overcome it? We do by creating a historiographic understanding of history first. And you do that by leaving out value judgments about that history, for these are necessarily projections of current cultural norms onto historical events.
17th century white Europeans didn't feel they did anything wrong when they bought slaves in Africa. Neither did some 17th century African tribes feel they did anything wrong when they sold Africans from other tribes to white Europeans. Neither did the Arabs that held millions of Europeans as slaves. Norms were different in those days.
Todays norms are pretending that we live in a world of social equality, which is obviously not the case, and the historic reasons for that are obvious. Today's cultural norms should be applied to today only. But in which way?
Your very selective reframing of history is reducing all white people, and the history of white people, to a stereotype, very much how like some white people reduce all black people (or people of other skin colors) to stereotypes, or how some Chinese people reduce all non-Chinese to stereotypes by calling them barbarians, etc.etc.. Your framing will not lead to an end to racism, it is creating a new one in its place, or besides it. Counterattacks such as yours will only have the effect of institutional racism going underground, become more subtly and skillfully camouflaged, and will set back disenfranchised people even more then they already are. Because even for the most co-operative low RWA Delta in the world, Earth is still a battlefield of territorial drives, and the winners take all. Make no mistake about it: low RWA and high RWA, in the end they are both biological strategies, and situational circumstances will determine which one works best in any scenario. In the original post by Adam Strange I already perceive what I consider to be a bias by the researcher.
One thing I have learned long, long ago: if someone does something wrong, disapprove of the behavior, do not disapprove of the person. If you express your disapproval of the person instead of their behavior, your relationship with that person will break down, and nothing will be accomplished after that. This doesn't just apply to problems with racism, but to all social interaction. Unless, of course, you are seeking to eradicate your perceived opponents and take their place. Earth has been a battlefield of territorial drives for millions of years, and the winner takes all.