It can be argued that it’s racist because “civilized” means “western” or “western-influenced”, i.e. contrasts countries in Europe + North America + Australia + maybe some of Eastern Asia with countries in Africa or Southern Asia.
You are very close to figuring out some of the problems with “social justice” ideology.
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for? Or try these: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2008/11/07/blacks-are-more-socially-conservative-than-barack-obama https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx
It also doesn’t help in conflicts such as Israel/Palestine (are Palestinians oppressed by Israel, so we stand up for them? are Israelis oppressed by the Muslim world, so we stand up for Israel?) or trans activists vs. trans-exclusionary feminists (are trans people an oppressed group whose rights we support? are women an oppressed group whose identity is being appropriated by trans women?). You can see it’s possible to argue nearly everything from the premise that we stand up for “oppressed groups”.
So I suggest people stop thinking in these terms at all and instead pick some other way of thinking, such as supporting a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. Not saying this helps in the specific (somewhat silly) argument you are quoting.
I agree with you substantially.
But just very recently there was a story in Germany where a male elementary school teacher revealed that he was gay. Many of his students were Muslims who were taught to hate gay people and now refused to respect him in various ways (including refusing to go to his classes).
Who is the “oppressed group” here?