No.
The point of an analogy is that it isn't a 1:1 mapping.
The utility of an analogy is that it conveys a point in a more obvious way. To do this, it can be stripped down, exaggerated and distorted, even logically inconsistent. The only measure of success is whether the point is received, and once that has occurred, the whole thing can be discarded in favour of a return to the original topic, now with a new perspective.
The analogy is merely a conversational tool. If it does the job, put it down and move on.
This kind of pedantic over-analysis is an even more useless interjection, and is a perfect example of something that, while correct in some regard, misses the point and only serves as a distraction.
Oh! I see what you're doing. You're insisting on a specific, unhelpful, and—ultimately—incorrect definition of a term as a meta-commentary on the weakened definition of racism as mere racial animosity as used by the privileged who think they know better than to listen to others, that are the subject of the post.
It's trolly as hell, but very clever, and a far, far better analogy. Bravo!