Wrong, the question is never even asked in your first scenario

Absolutely correct. But if I try to reason backwards, this must be the question. Because if this were to happen the other way around, and you'd dispute that it's racism, the response must be "well, what other reason could there be?"

Or black-on-Asian crime. Or black-on-Jew crime. They'll either ignore it completely, or ignore the race of the attacker and blame it on white supremacy.

The formula is as follows: black on anyone (including black) is ignored, because they cannot exploit that. Anyone on black is white supremacy, even if the 'perp' is a 'white Hispanic'.

And if it's black-on-white, well, the white person probably had it coming, right?

There was a case of a black guy in New York who raped a girl and beat her bloody as, he claimed, revenge for slavery. When someone commits an atrocity and cites 'replacement theory', this means they always claim 'replacement idea, a conspiracy theory which has led to several mass shootings'. Not when it is their own ideology that is allegedly responsible.

Said a no-no word, or just, you know, hundreds of years of slavery or whatever.

My favorite argument is when they try to claim that black families are weak because of slavery - when they were much stronger before the era of political pandering. And when evangelicals point this out, the point is ignored and they are accused of 'defending slavery'

Though reading this article now, I'm struck by how objective it is compared to how media lies today. They'd just write "signed a pledge which included a racist paragraph" while never describing what it is.