andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> W, that's the law (McClesky v. Klemp) but it's
> reactionary and in fact racist. You are not a racist
> or a reactionary, but this position you advocate is
> both.
The old cliche works. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, . . .
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "racist" here. If you mean that W is pure of heart and sincerely believes that races are equal, that is nice but sort of irrelevant. Without fail he defends the racist institutions which structure life in the u.s. That, and not the private attitudes of the person concerned, is my definition of racism.
Carrol