Sorry for the late post...
I don't know if I agree with that idea of what racism is Ron.
For instance, in Rwanda, for many many decades the Tutsi were systematically treated as inferior citizens as their Tutsi counterparts were essentially given the keys to industry (analagous to your point about F500 companies), political power, and enjoyed enhanced rights in most respects (both de facto and de jure). Does that suggest that because of the dominant societal power of the Tutsi that the Rwandan genocide was not an ugly, ugly case of racism rearings its ghastly head? Perhaps you don't want to call that racism, perhaps you want to call it a bloody and tragic response to societal subjugation. But, at the end of the day, the central component that drove that genocide is something very close to "race."
Also, it may depend on how you define power. But there are a number of scenarios that are not too trivial (especially in the aggregate) in which that definition may fail you.
I don't mean to suggest that you gave some sort of precise definition, since it's clear you had a broader idea in mind. I merely wanted to suggest that to say a group without societal power is insulated from all (legitimate) claims that it's being racist itself is not so conceptually scalable.