They definitely do not define racism the same way before and after 2016. Every single one of your sources with a copyright before 2016 use the traditional definition to the effect of discrimination based on race.
Every single book before 2016 described both personal racism and institutional/systemic racism. Every book after 2016 also described both personal racism and institutional/systemic racism. Nothing in any text said that minority people can't be personally racist. Did you think I didn't actually read this stuff before I linked it?
Every single one of your sources with copyrights after 2016 add in a hierarchical component to indicate racism can only be exhibited by a dominant or majority group and therefore members of minority groups cannot be racist.
Let's run down your list with the post-2016 entries in purple and the pre-2016 entries in green. First up is a post-2016 entry:
It's definition of racism:
Racism is a stronger type of prejudice and discrimination used to justify inequalities against individuals by maintaining that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is a set of practices used by a racial dominant group to maximize advantages for itself by disadvantaging racial minority groups.
Two definitions joined by a semi-colon. One definition for personal racism, a second definition that involves heirarchies.
...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:
This was utterly false, and makes you out to be such an incompetent reader that you don't understand when a textbook is offering a definition, or such a liar that you don't care about spreading easily disproven falsehoods.
...and here is what this copyright 2021 text says defines racicm:
Full quote:
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a strong type of prejudice; one used to justify the belief that humans are subdivided into groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked hierarchically.
Racism is also a set of practices used by a racial majority group to disadvantage a racial minority group. Institutional racism refers to the way in which racism is embedded in the fabric of society. For example, the disproportionate number of black men arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes may reflect racial profiling, a form of institutional racism.
Both definitions, as I stated, and note the individual definition is the one that is bolded. Again, this makes you look either incompetent or utterly dishonest. At least, I no longer question whether you are bothered when your sources lie to you. You just don't care.
This link didn't work for me. If you can pull up the relevant section and the copyright I'm confident you'll find that if the copyright is before 2016 the definition won't mention dominant or majority while if it is after 2016 it will.
For completeness,
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a stronger type of prejudice used to justify the belief that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is also a set of practices used by a racial majority to disadvantage a racial minority
Again, both personal and hierarchical definitions. Reading this definition, can you guess if it is pre-2016 or post-2016?
Next up:
...and here is what this post-2016 text says defines racicm:
It is a post-2016 source and here again is hierarchical qualifier language to justify the idea members of minority groups cannot be racist.
I'm not sure how you can identify the year, but you obviously can't identify the passage on page 11 where racism is actually defined:
[Prejudice] refers to widely held pre-conceptions of a group (majority or minority) and it's individual members.
Further down on page 11:
Racism is an extreme form of prejudice, because it not only involves judging other people unfairly, but it assumes that a person's own race or ethnic group is superior.
Here the part you quoted, with the correct initial word, from page 12.
Discrimination takes many forms, including avoiding social contact with members of minority groups, denying them positions that carry authority and blocking their access to the more exclusive neighborhoods. It can also involve such extremes as attacking or killing minority members.
I don't see any way you can convincingly state that you didn't see the first word of the sentence you cut off was "discrimination" as opposed to "racism". You're just a liar. Works for me.
Next up is a text from BEFORE 2016 and the hierarchical qualifier language is not there.
Your own quoted divided it into personal and institutional racism. You did my work for me.
That is the difference between pre-2016 definitions and post-2016 definitions.
Actually, that statement (if sincerely meant) is personally racist by any definition offered above.
Next is an example from 2013:
From the glossary of this book:
racism prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race
Again, both definitions. Also:
Convinced that research should have the goal of improving social life, others focus on the social arrangements that harm people—poverty, crime, racism, sexism, war, and other forms of human exploitation.
Lastly, we have another example from 2013:
Savind the very best for last, we have:
However, discrimination cannot be erased from our culture just by enacting laws to abolish it. Even if a magic pill managed to eradicate racism from each individual’s psyche, society itself would maintain it. Sociologist Émile Durkheim called racism “a social fact,” meaning that it does not require the action of individuals to continue (1895). The reasons for this are complex and relate to the educational, criminal, economic, and political systems that exist.
So, the notions of racial hierarchy and power structures are some 120 years older than you claim, back to the one of the founders of sociology as a scientific discipline.
If you pull a definition of racism from your 1967 textbook, it will not have the hierarchical qualifier language included now in post-2016 definitions of racism.
I've demonstrated that the same basic definitions and concepts appear pre- and post-2016, and you've demonstrated you'll lie your *** off to pretend otherwise.
Normally a person proven so completely wrong using his own sources would say "That is interesting. I'd not noticed that before and can see the point you were trying to make" but I know you so spin away and drag the goalposts across the field.
No spin needed. You utterly failed, and lied so egregiously that I see no point in continuing this discussion.
You need to seriously consider your moral compass here. You're so desperate to be proven right you'll brazenly lie. It's not healthy for you.