let me just answer you by saying: no.

is racism over? this has been coming up in student conversations for some of my colleagues, and frankly, it's jaw-dropping. i talked with an acquaintance at length about her anyone-but-obama stance regarding the upcoming election--she was a clinton supporter, but was willing to defect to the GOP rather than vote for obama--and was greatly dismayed. the talking point seems to be that no one makes blanket judgments based on any longer race, or will cop to an absolute racial hatred, and what remains (assuming these more overt hatreds have been quelled, which seems unlikely) is something other than racism.

the pundits linked above say "it's race, not racism," something like "racially influenced judgment" rather than racism itself, and "it's the unfamiliarity" (a lack of experiential knowledge as opposed to a hatred). i feel like i'm explicating the obvious a little, but isn't saying you're afraid a black presidential candidate will "bring in farrakhan" (what does that mean, anyway? a cabinet position? a telephone call? a golf lunch? "bring him in" to do what?) because you've been persuaded by a media frenzy that he associates with crazy-go-nuts race radicals . . . isn't that a little . . . racist? if we call it "racially influenced judgement," has the nature of the behaviour really changed?

if someone has to be a card-carrying white supremacist to qualify as racist, then i guess a bunch of us are relieved to know we're in the clear. i've been pointing to project implicit as evidence of the deeply entrenched racism even the very nicest of us have going on, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to those i encounter who insist that since they abjure the klan, racism has been vanquished. insert laughable mission accomplished banner here.