Why do Bush Supporters & Other conservatives have a Stronger Bias Towards Blacks?

I assume you mean the definition given by Eboni. My definition doesn't allow minorities the right to be racist without being considered racist. I get that definition from dictionary.com ...

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I got an "A" in African American studies in college, and that is not the complex definition we were taught.

If it doesn't appear in any dictionary it wouldn't be a valid definition. College professors aren't immune to bias. Your professor might have fallen victim to the notion only oppressors can be racist. I have heard of this in the past. It seems it is used to divide the races. Allowing minorities to hate and feel it's acceptable.

My opinion is hating based on skin color, or assuming one race is superior is racism.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have said let us judge one another by the content of character and nothing else, I'm sure.

"Why would you trust that drunken bum on the street?" "Because he said (something I already wanted to believe is true)".

Not valid logic.

Jes' sayin'.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I agree with most of your post, except one thing... You forgot to mention the fact most black slaves brought here were bought from other blacks. The whites did travel looking for slaves, but the black slaves were actually enslaved by their own people in most cases.

That blatant falsehood would sound much more credible if accompanied by some basis in fact. Recruited? yes; enslaved? surely you jest.

"People who substitute dictionary.com for thinking might have other nasty habits" -- me

Do thinking people use dictionaries to verify the meaning of words? Hmm, tough one... ummm, no, we argue about the meaning of words and insist we are THE authority.

LOL!

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --- that's all."

That blatant falsehood would sound much more credible if accompanied by some basis in fact. Recruited? yes; enslaved? surely you jest.

That blatant falsehood would sound much more credible if accompanied by some basis in fact. Recruited? yes; enslaved? surely you jest.

Between 1450 and the end of the nineteenth century, slaves were obtained from along the west coast of Africa with the full and active co-operation of African kings and merchants. (There were occasional military campaigns organised by Europeans to capture slaves, especially by the Portuguese in what is now Angola, but this accounts for only a small percentage of the total.) In return, the African kings and merchants received various trade goods including beads, cowrie shells (used as money), textiles, brandy, horses, and perhaps most importantly, guns.

African traders transported slaves from the interior of Africa. Equiano and others found themselves sold and traded more than once, often in slave markets. African merchants, the poor, royalty -- anyone -- could be abducted in the raids and wars that were undertaken by Africans to secure slaves that they could trade.

Slaves taken from the West African regions known as the Slave Coast, Gold Coast, and Côte d'Ivoire were sold into slavery as a result of a defeat in warfare. Mighty kings in the Bight of Biafra near modern-day Senegal and Benin sold their captives to European slave traders for such things as metal cookware, rum, and livestock.

In return, the African kings and merchants received various trade goods including beads, cowrie shells (used as money), textiles, brandy, horses, and perhaps most importantly, guns.

"Sold by their own people" - by "own people" do you mean other Africans who were their "own people" only in the sense that they shared skin color? This would be akin to saying that the Chinese and the Japanese are "one people", both of whom historically take great exception to that statement.

If you wish for "sold by their own people" to mean "sold by their sworn enemies of countless generations" than I am in perfect agreement.

The difference between "Sworn enemy" and "village minding its own buisness that happened to be convieniently located" was not particularly strong in all cases.

For almost all pre-industrial societies for which we have any observations, those two phrases are essentially synonymous.

For almost all pre-industrial societies for which we have any observations, those two phrases are essentially synonymous.