The idea that statements can have the "colors flipped" and be equivalent assumes a context where there exists racial and ethnic equality, which there isn't. A white person saying "I don't want brown people to move into this neighborhood" and a brown person saying "I don't want white people to move into this neighborhood" are only equivalent if you evaluate those statements without a social and historical context.

In this example how do we think that a legacy of redlining, gentrification, and racial wealth inequality would impact the motivations of the speakers?

> are only equivalent if you evaluate those statements without a social and historical context

This is presupposed by moral relativism, which can disintegrate the whole conversation incredibly quickly if we're not careful.

I think that most people would agree that truth can exist outside of a given context. To argue that all truth requires context is a _very_ slippery slope that most aren't truly committed to.

With that being said, something is racist regardless of who says it. There isn't a differentiation based on any sort of perceived, favored group. It's incredibly difficult to be consistent with the opposing stance.

I understand there is historical context. I even can comprehend why a good person would have such feelings.

I can also assert that it is racist nonetheless, and that we should either admit some level of racial bias is acceptable in parts of society, or we should admit that even "understandable" racism should be discouraged.