Oh, and I wanted to say that racism is the action of supremacy. You can't be a racist unless you act on some supremicist idea. In that way, there are many, many, many black/white supremecists in the world, but only so many racists. And Ebony is not a racist magazine, it is simply ethnocentric. There's a massive difference.
That's a very first-semester Sociology major way of thinking, dear. In point of fact, there are too many shades of grey to go along with that shotgun spray, set of brightline standards that you are laying out up there. So you say to be a racist, one has to think that he or she is better than that person. You're probably right insofar as that is what most people think. That doesn't make it true, though. And since it's accepted that way, it's probably the reason that concept and definition of racism has perpetuated itself into the buzzword that it is today, and since people drop the word without a second thought nowadays, it has snowballed into a concept of requirement for any differences between people that don't look alike, talk alike, have a different amount of melanin inside them, or come from different sides of a body of water or otherwise imaginary line of demarcation.
Look at the Oxford dictionary definition of racism here:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=racism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2CnameThat definition was published in the original version of the Oxford English Dictionary in 1928, although the project began all the way back in 1857. It remains the most complete dictionary in the world. Shows how language has changed in the span of eighty years, huh?
Now I understand what you're getting at, but the cause-and-effect way you're going about relating supremacists to racists is backwards: You first say that racism comes from supremacy, but then you say that there are tons of supremacists, but few racists. Well...which is it? Chicken or Egg? It's like you're using this "all squares are rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares" argument and that existential logic just doesn't cut it.
Now I'm sure the peanut gallery wants an example of how something could be considered racist without being supremacist. O.K., here it is:
Affirmative ActionThe concept that a person's race be the deciding factor between two candidates for a job who are equal in every qualification would be racism without a supremacist mindset. There are other examples, but I would say that is the most prominent and recognizable way.
If we go all the way back to race, which is the real issue, anyone who's taken genetics to any degree at all, then they know that there is very little genetic difference in all humans, and that the only race is, in fact, the Human Race. Racial division as we know it is a social construct, not a physiological one.
And lastly, to say there's a massive difference in ethnocentrism and racism is just naive, not to mention completely contradictory to the other claims you make. The fact remains that ethnocentrism feeds the racism monster by focusing on what makes people different from one another, rather than embrace the things that bring people together. A prime example is the hyphenated American concept. The idea that a person is an Italian-American, African-American (or Afro-American), or a bevy of other hyphenations applied to the base idea of being an American is ridiculous. To me, you can't hyphenate your nationality unless you have dual citizenship. Which, for the uninitiated, means that you should only call yourself an "Italian-American" if you are a citizen of both Italy and the U.S. The whole concept is again, racist without being supremacist. It's labelling yourself as something else before being an American, and that does nothing but widen the gaps between ethnicities.
Just be aware that the popular idea is not always the truth. Not that what I say is the truth. It's one man's educated estimation of how things are, and why people shouldn't be influenced by institutions whose time has passed.
I'm going to step aside now so the contrarians can circumvent logic and good taste with dazzling displays of
ad hominem attacks and fallacies galore.
Ooopera