No, I actually find them equally offensive, which is exactly the point I’ve been making.

Then why say,

The Theology Obama has been pouring his time, talent and money into for two decades, make David Duke on his worst day, look like a big tenter.

That blacks are currently being oppressed. As even you admit:Those eras have passed.

Not exactly. The era of slavery has passed, as has the time of Jim Crowe, that does not mean that there is no more oppression* of African Americans. There is a continuum. We can argue about where exactly we are on that continuum. Any reasonable person would agree that we are on the proper side of Jim Crowe on that continuum, but most reasonable people realize that we have not reached full and true equality. Is the oppression of today the same in scope and severity as that of 50 or even 20 years ago? No. Is it still present in ways that many African Americans feel in their daily lives? Yes.

When the hatred still exists, even when the oppression does not.

As stated above the oppression, while considerably less has not ended.

Also, when the hatred is not directed at the oppressors per se; IE individuals, but ALL peple of a particualr racial group, simply for their being a part of said racial group. As in:

“Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’”

Again you ignore the context of the quote provided above.

The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces.

Clearly this is speaking of white power structures of the late sixties, you know the ones with the dogs and fire hoses. Hatred of a power structure that is doing you and your race harm is not racism in any meaningful sense.

Try dealing in reality, today.

When referencing quotes from nearly 40 years ago that is hardly the appropriate standard. These things were written in the heat of the struggle for civil rights when abuse was wide and the lives of civil rights protesters were not safe in parts of the country. To ignore this context is at best willfully ignorant.

And Bit that one or several other people are misusing a word does not mean that the sloppy or incorrect usage is any more correct.

* Webster: 1. unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.

There was no way that he didn’t know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.

Exactly.
I suppose and expect this gent to know more of what constitutes racism than the two of us put together.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Prejudice is not racism. Hatred of people who have f*cked you over for generations is not racism.

Trouble is, Hal, that's not happened. You said it yourself, this is a new era.

It's not. Prejudice is not racism. Hatred of people who have f*cked you over for generations is not racism. Racism is the inherent belief that a race is inferior simply because of their race. That includes a lot of hate, but simply hating isn't racism.

But in your world, bithead, you grab onto a single component and - much like Goldberg - make the leap in logic that because another group shares the same component that they must in fact be the same thing.

It's just shoddy logic any way you look about it.

yes. My definition is well in line with your source's first two and agrees with the overwhelming consensus of other sources almost perfectly. you, on the other hand have a single reference in a third hand source well below the first two definitions.

Therefore, you are correct!

Dude, hate is obviously a part of racism, but it isn't the *defining* characteristic of racism. Israelis hate Arabs because of all the bombings and killings and the fact that that Arabs have collectively called for their extermination. And the Israeli statements by not just their government, but by their leaders, their great thinkers, their people, all fit the definition of racism that you are trying to promulgate. Now, if you're going to insist on defining Wright, et. al. as racist, then you are pretty much forced to define the Israelis as racists. I'm pretty sure that even now you're starting to hem and haw about how that's a completely different case and the actions of the Arabs justify the Israeli's hatred of the Arabs, etc, etc, etc.

Which is precisely GWillis' point which you seem incapable of getting because you are pretty much wed to your "definition" of racism because of your politics.

One would simply classify this as restricting the definition so that it agreees with your point

Sure they would... if they were trying to deny the definition exsted so as to give their own twisting more creds.

As to the service mentioned, Look up a few words on it, and you'll find it cross references several sounces on most words, including those you ask about.

No wonder liberals find my arguments so… umm…. restrictive. Welcome to ‘words mean things”.

Geebus. One would simply classify this as restricting the definition so that it agreees with your point. As I said, even your example shows that this isn't the commonly accepted definition. You just chose it because it fits your world view. And it's quite clear from doing even a casual search on other dictionaries that your definition doesn't even show up. For example, Merriam Webster(1)

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Or Oxford(2)

1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

Or Cambridge

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races:

So why Dictionary.com? Is it some gold standard compared to the Webster which has been around for generations, or Oxford which has been around since the 1850s or Cambridge, which has been around longer than the US has been a country? Of course not. It just happens to be something on the web that confirms your worldview. And even your source doesn't feel necessary to list it as the first or second definition. This is a classic case of Confirmation Bias in full display.

Truly, a master debater.

Oh, as to the link, it got broken. (My fault. I keep forgetting I'm working through a proxy, here.) Try the word at Dictionary.com. I use that one as the first line, since it's pretty much the fastest resource of it's type.

With all that established, perhaps we can move on:

When does hatred of an oppressor become racism?

When the hatred still exists, even when the oppression does not. Also, when the hatred is not directed at the oppressors per se; IE individuals, but ALL peple of a particualr racial group, simply for their being a part of said racial group. As in:

“Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’”

That's not hatred for a particular oppressor, that's hatred for a race, and is as racist as saying black people are the devil. IE; It is, by it's very definition, Racism.

Are you getting this, yet?

Oh well, if this is your defense - i.e. the THIRD definition of a word in a DICTIONARY you don't even provide a link to - well, I feel pretty sorry for you dude.

That's pretty weak tea and I'm glad you think you've found a truffle cause it's pretty much all you've got. It's pretty clear that from even a casual content analysis of actual usage by - you know - people who actually deal with racism as their actual job, that your definition you have somehow decided is THE BASIC DEFINITION OF RACISM, despite being the the last definition in some random dictionary you found isn't the one that anyone else uses.

So, dance your victory dance. You found something that verifies your world view.

Woo hoo. You are master debater.

Do your research

I already have. But I tend to use the dictinoary. (Gee, bet you never thought of THAT one, huh?) Welcome to 'words mean things'.

rac·ism –noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Note, in particular, definition 3, in light of the quotes provided earlier, and tell me how they don't qualify as racism.

Well, all you're doing is proving that you have no grasp of basic logic and argument construction.

This is precisely the same dufus move that Goldberg uses:

Al McCogan is dead. Therefore all dead people are Al McCogan.

Any first semester Philosophy student can demolish such an argument without even exercising a brain cell.Here, let me rephrase it for the intellectually challenged:

Racist people spew hate targeted at a specific race. Therefore anyone spewing hate targeted at a specific race is a Racist.

I mean, really. I'm not the one with my ears plugged. So far, I've consistently engaged you and have gone out of my way to provide backup for my argumentation. You've done jack. You're now just resorting to taunting in the vain hope that you'll somehow humilate me into accepting that your argument true.

Dude, go to some remedial classes in logic and argument construction. It'll do everyone a world of good.

Racism isn't hatred of people of a specific race. Look it up. Use Wikipedia for christ's sake.

Racism has many definitions, the correct being that members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. Racism inherently starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. Without this assumption, prejudices against different peoples would be catagorised as being prejudices related to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction.

Do your research and start figuring out that words have meaning apart from what you may think they mean.

Do you really find Duke more inclusive?

No, I actually find them equally offensive, which is exactly the point I've been making. One might argue that even Duke didn't call blacks 'the enemy', but I'm not getting into that discussion. The point is, the hate each espouses, are both based in RACE. That is by definition, racist. That Hal ingores this most basic definition smacks to me of fingers in the ears chanting "nah, nah, nah nah, I can't hear you".

Can I make that any clearer for you?

When does hatred of an oppressor become racism?

Such a question tries to apply an unwarranted assumption to the current context; That blacks are currently being oppressed. As even you admit:Those eras have passed.

Try dealing in reality, today.

Those eras have passed, but there are still plenty of people who lived through Jim Crowe and carry those wounds with them and will likely carry them to their graves. While I disagree with the world that has created in some it is a far cry from the likes of David Duke.

No. They come from the church’s founder, the father of black liberation theology, a guy named “Cone”

Cone was not the founder of TUCC or any other church. He was one of the founders of Black theology.
From the admittedly not so authoritative wiki,

The modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen (NCNC), bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their "Black Power Statement," which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.[1]

James Cone and Dwight Hopkins are considered the leading theologians of this system of belief, although now there are may scholars who have contributed a great deal to the field. It was Cone who in the spring of 1969 published the seminal work that systemized black liberation theology, Black Theology and Black Power (1969).