That really makes it a matter of semantics, then. I agree there is no good racism, but discrimination and racism are not the same thing. Glenn & Dennis had it right - we discriminate (make choices) each day, whether it's food, friends, or whatever. Some people don't like lawyers; that's discrimination, but not an illegal form of discrimination. Some people don't like professional athletes. Again, that can be an acceptable form of discrimination. Some men prefer redheads; some women prefer millionaires!

Personally, I would never vote for or against a candidate on the basis of race, gender, or hair color. But maybe in 1960 I would have voted for an Irish Catholic because he was "one of us" and "it's about time." I wouldn't be voting against the Quaker on the basis of his religion, but I would be voting for someone based, in part, on it. The historical bonds that Irish Catholics shed in 1960 are being repeated today by other groups, whether it is Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or Muslims. The same struggle has been fought at one time or another by Poles (recall their pride when a Pole became Pope), Italians, Jews, and women. Each group made strides because a substantial part of the population quit voting against them, while another part of the population actively voted for them.

When I ran for public office, a lot of older voters said they voted for me (a relative youngster) because they wanted to bring "new blood" to city politics. That was a form of age discrimination. Others mentioned they voted for a woman who was also seeking office because they wanted more women in government. These are just the guideposts that many people use. I see it and I accept that it happens.

It's only human nature. My "group" benefited from the shift in 1960, and I can't criticize other groups for enjoying it today. So, again, I see racism as negative, but I don't always view these choices as negative.