I feel that I get involved in this subject more than I originally intended, so this is my final saon the subject. I feel, however, that you attempts to place me on a political litmus test based on your interpretation of what I said about race substantially distorts the point I was trying to make: that "racism" is a very mushy and vague concept that allows anyone to read into it whatever he wants.
To further clarify:
1. There are persistent patterns of multi-faceted social inequalities that correspond with ethnic differences - that is undeniable reality.
2. Any explantion of these patterns by ahistoric all-embracing generalities or abstractions with a heavy load of emotive connotations but thin on clearly defined empirical contents, such as "good moral character", "human capital" or "racism," makes good sound-bite journalism but poor empirical science.
3. The point of my argument is to stop using such abstractions to "explain" empirical reality, rather than to deny the existence of that reality - as you seem to imply. Such 'explanations' may provide emotional comfort akin to mooning the dominant paradigm and authority figures (not a bad thing, as Michael Moore has demonstrated), but unlike Michael More's tricks, they have a serious disadvantage of being easily refutable in a rational discourse. That can backfire and trivialize otherwise legitimate claims.
If you want to counter my argument, you need to demonstrate the analytical usefulness of the concept of "racism" instead of pulling the "holocaust denier" trick and changing the subject from a description of reality to reality itself.
wojtek