What are peoples' perspective regarding racism outside of Europe and North America?

Question

Note - I'm not too experienced at the nuances of framing questions in this area and many terms carry heavy meaning, some of which I might be less aware of. I hope nothing in this question presumes anything inappropriately, but if I've worded the question poorly or used a term where a better term exists, please correct me.

In Europe, North America, and some regions with strong historical benefits inherited by descendants from these regions, racism debate often gets framed in terms of white benefit/privilege, and this is often described as due to the overwhelming one-sided benefits gained by that ethnic group specifically (and to an extent those able to pass).

This view has become so pivotal in the West it's easy to forget or marginalise other ethnic divides, privileges and racism issues, or subsume all of them in the assumption of white privilege. (By that, I don't mean to argue "other X's exist" or anything that marginalises any issue). That might not be the position held, but is at times a position as stated.

For example, it's possible to state that all racism is white racism, which was on today's radio (a BBC Radio 4 interview). To be fair, I think this may have been meant in a wider sense, that it all stems from white colonialism, or white privilege, or is "white-like" or a similar sense. But this tends to underline the point that racism (in the West) is often seen as primarily white (or white-colonial) racism, and less so in other contexts (which thereby get excluded from debate or become marginalised/secondary/less visible if included).

Which brings me to my question. In Japan, foreigners from other Asian countries such as Koreans were historically disparaged - they were targets of racism. In Rwanda one tribal ethnicity engaged in genocide against another not many years ago, surely influenced by its colonial history but occurring between perceived "more-favoured"/"less favoured" peoples, in which white ethnic persons were largely neither attackers nor targets. Ditto recent events affecting the Rohingya people - the country was once under British rule but that doesn't seem to have been widely cited as the underlying reason for this year's ethnic conflict. I'm not so historically aware, but I believe that other divides that appear to be racism or ethnicity-related may have predated colonial history and/or resumed after it ended, perhaps fuelled by it. Thus in India, it was not (as far as I know) the case that one religion out of Islam and Hinduism was favoured and one became suppressed colonially, yet directly after colonialism ended, mass migrations and massacres occurred between these great peoples. In fact I would be amazed, human nature being what it is, if there was not racism within and between many groups of people in the long term, even in the absence of white ethnic impact and white ethnic colonialism.

So, when a person who holds that all racism is white racism (in whatever sense they mean it) contemplates other racism around the world of these kinds, what framework do they use to interpret what they see, in situations where it isn't self-evident that it is a result of white ethnicity or white colonial impact, or where it appears that the divide predated/survived these?

(Put another way, if 'all racism is white racism' is a framework that is used by some people, what does that expression mean to them, when other racism is contemplated?)

In answering, there are possibly two distinct groups to consider - those persons who consider racism and live in Europe and North America, but also those who live in regions where white-related racism may not be seen as "the big racial division", and who may have entirely different frameworks (which are less visible in Europe and North America) for their understandings.

Again, sorry if I mis-worded anything above, and I hope it's possible to understand my actual question if I have asked it poorly.