Racism on live chess

Either way, this doesn't effect my statement about Obama's election is irrelevant in a discussion of racial intolerance in the US.  Obama got something like 51% of the popular vote.  So that means that a little more than half of that 57.5% didn't let racism towards African-Americans decide their vote.  It in no way reflects racism towards all other races, and it's still only going to represent something around 30% of the population.  Higher numbers than what I stated, but the fact that it doesn't reflect a high level of racial tolerance is still valid.

This also doesn't include the percentage of African-Americans who voted for Obama nor does it include the Democrats who will die before voting for a Republican.  If we include these, the known precentage of white people who are racially tolerant enough to vote for an Afircan-American is much lower.

This is utter rubbish you speak!

In your post above you choose to analyse voting patterns by the colour of a persons skin.

Why do this at all since they are all Americans and the majority would presumably vote for the best-person for the job?

Perhaps removing the term ''Afro-American'' from day to day conversation entirely would be a more progressive step.

It wasn't there, unless you believe that denial of the existence of racism somehow legitimately represents conservatism.

A pedantic point.... affect and effect are different words. You should have effected affect above.

But I still don't get this idea that Obama is African. His mother was a white woman with a PhD. Your brains go with the X chromosome, which you get from your mother, if you are male.

Culturally, he was raised by a white woman and her parents, with some early time in Indonesia and some fathering (I guess) from a Malay man.

Seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to call him black.

Genetic evidence of that might exist, but I doubt it.

A lot of Americans would like to believe this. Some do, despite almost daily reminders that racism is very much alive.

You are contradicting yourself, in the first sentence you say Obama election is irrelevant in a discussion of race, but by the last sentence you have shifted to "the known precentage of white people who are racially tolerant enough to vote...is much lower".

Elections between republicans and democrats are usually split pretty evenly, and this was no different (with Obama slightly on the plus side), if there really was a huge swath of Americans who would change their vote because of race then you would expect Obama to lose, because he would have the typical votes against a democrat plus all the racially charged ones. Instead the election looked just like a generic republican vs democrat one.

I voted for Obama because I thought he was by far the better candidate, race had nothing to do with it one way or the other (mostly I just thought  Mitt was horrible). But if I had liked the other guy better and voted for him, this would not have made me a racist. 

Racism is alive and thriving almost everywhere.  What world are you living in?

The vehement anti-Catholicism that exists in some circles did not vanish when John F. Kennedy was elected. Many suspended their open and vocal anti-Mormonism in support of Mitt Romney (even the man whose open contempt for Mormons led to Romney's withdrawal from the race in 2008, and Romney's best political speech so far)

Racism, too, has not been universally vanquished. "Irrelevant" might overstate the case, but that hyperbole comes closer to expressing the realities than those who come to a thread about racism in online chat in order to declare that a nation built on a foundation of racial caste has somehow transcended this history by electing Obama. C'mon, a significant percentage of Americans believe that he is Muslim (and that's not because he has a white mother).

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/justice-sotomayor-slams-racist-texas-attorney,512cffecd7fc7b56704931fa/1

Racism may stil be alive, but I say it is dying, not thriving. I have seen it dying over my lifetime.

If racism was ancient history there would be no KKK (there are other indications of racism as well).  However there is an organization of people who call themselves white knights and they are organized.  They even have a headquarters.

I don't disagree entirely, but I think it is going to be a long and very slow death.

The royal family, reptilians? Hah! Ha ha!

Really?

I havn't encounted so many Americans so blase about racism (no z in racism)

It's confirmed my opinion that it's deeply entrenched in the culture.

All I ask is that they don't use it on here. PLEASE.

No, I don't think it's a contradiction.  It's stating that the percentages are too low to use the election as an example of America's complete racial tolerance and the results only show us a small portion of the total population.

This isn't how racism works.

This anti-Catholic thing is also well entrenched in America, but not so much as racism.  Many of the early settlers came here from Protestant Britain and from Catholic nations to find religious freedom.  Most Americans seem to think that the word Christian excludes Catholics.  Why would an educated person think that "Protestant" and "Christian" are synonymous?  I wonder if it comes from the past.

A Protestant is said to have a direct relationship with Christ, where a Catholic is said to have a relationship with Christ via the pope (certainly in the days of the schism). Do you have the word papism for Catholics too? AFAIK Papism and Christianity are the opposites of each other, not Catholicism and Christianity.