Well then, we are of a mind on this.  And it kind of sounds like you claimed a majority of Americans are, 1) perfectly happy accepting government handouts for their entire lives or 2) perfectly happy enabling the others.  And cited Obama's win as evidence of that, as though those of us who voted for Obama self-identified as one of those two things. 

To quibble over one point, I recall a similar discussion on the Yahoo board back in, . . . 2003?  2004?  I offered this explanation then and I repeat it now.  When someone like Spike Lee makes the claim "it is impossible for a black person to be a racist in America" they are--wittingly or through repitition--using an academic definition of racism, one that is not commonly employed in general speaking, but one I favor.

Racism is a system of discrimination that favors one race over another, and racists are the supporters of that system.  Thus, since the system of racism in America favors white people, it's not really feasible for one to be a black racist in America, i.e. someone who supports black superiority.  Racism in that context should be distinguished from bigotry and prejudice, although it is not always. 

So, people yell out a lot of low information crap during elections.  I get a lot more worked up about "cutting taxes on job creators" for being a load of society-damaging bullshit, then I do about someone yelling out "blacks can't be racists in America" and possibly being correct, depending on how they were using the term.

forsberg_us wrote:

I'll respond to you the same way I responded to him--bullshit!!!

A racist is one who makes decisions based on race.  The Klan is full of racists.  But so is the New Black Panther Party.

Well, you are just as entitled to make up your own definition for racism as is the next guy.  But my point is that it's a bit unreasonable to judge a person's use of "racism" based on your definition, rather than on his.  That's sort of the whole brouhaha with gay marriage.  Many conservatives have finally warmed to the idea of gay unions, but they don' want "'marriage' to be redefined" to include gay unions.  That's what the WA ballot initiative was about, anyway.

FWIW, in the definitions I am familiar with, what you describe above is prejudice.  If accompanied with irrational dislike, it's bigotry.