Wrong. That's not at all what I said, and once again you have completely turned what I said into the straw man of saying "nuh uh".
Since you obviously really do not want to engage in any meaningful way, I'll leave you with this parting thought:
What I said was advocating for the disadvantaged is a very different thing than advocating for those who already have all of the advantages. This is not at all the same as saying "it's different because of skin colour." And what I said was that Trump and Bannon have a long history of racism. This is not at all the same as saying that someone is racist because they are white.
If you think that being "disadvantaged" is an excuse for racism, or that it somehow makes a person engaged in racist activities / espousing racist ideals / joining racist organization magically not a racist, you and I disagree. You appear to be holding 2 irreconcilable positions. Or you're completely changing the definition of racism to "only white people" / "only people with power" which we see commonly on the left.
The problem here is that if it's only white people, that is inherently a racist position per the common parlance and dictionary definition of the term. If it is only white people, we are saying that minorities are beneath us, and can't be expected to overcome race, only white people are that self-aware and that competent. And that is in fact a very condescending, racist position to have.
If it is only people with power, then suddenly we have to question if the common poor white person can be racist. Because he/she has no power, and thus cannot be racist. Except, a person's power / wealth / influence doesn't preclude them from having racist views or taking racist actions. In fact, the same people pushing this idea have no problem referring to those poor rural white americans as being racist, xenophobic, islamophobic, etc rascals clinging to their God and their guns. So, then you have to change this entire assumption and painting of America, and even probably of many white nationalists who may be poor and have no power.
So... we find ourselves back at the current textbook definition of racism, which in fact does seem to be the best definition we can supply. Now, we take this definition, and apply it to the "Trump University" situation, which I have already described in detail. We then apply the law for recusal, which I have provided, and we find that Trump is correct and the judge in fact should recuse himself.
Now, we can use this same definition of racism, to apply to the question of Trump, of Bannon, and of any of Trump's potential picks for cabinet (or Czar/adviser) and look at the evidence. What we have is no real evidence for Bannon, and for Trump, the best argument so far has been the Judge Curiel accusation, which we have now proven to be incorrect, leaving us with the conclusion that there is no current evidence these people are racist. (Which doesn't mean they aren't, but that it would be remiss of us to judge them as such without evidence, so we find them not-guilty.)