As a nation we often define racism as whites hating blacks. Is that the only form of racism? Certainly it has a strong historical precedence but as my son learned recently, members of a minority are as capable of racism and unfair behavior as any other member of society.
I would suggest that the route to the elimination of racism is to hold all members of society to the same bar. For example, when a black refers to another black man as a "nigger," is this productive? Isn't this 'joke' amongst friends actually a constant reminder of the marginalization of one's demographic group? If so, then to whom is the infliction of prejudice to be assigned? I find it equally unacceptable but, as you may note by your own reaction, it is an assumption that, to even challenge, is deemed racist and unacceptable - or at the very least uncomfortable. Said differently, if "I" get to define the converation on racism, you can be assured I will define it to my favor. That being said, who is tolerable in this example and who is being prevent from even engaging in a dialogue that may result in substantive change and viable solutions? Abdication of a position for the fear of being labelled is a monopoly on the debate which is, by design, established to give those in control of the language an advantage.

I think with all things even today, majority rules. When one says something, it isnt heard as loudly when others collectively join hands and speak out about it. The pendulum will always swing to the majority vote and it took one brave man to speak out and really get america to open their eyes into the crime against human equality they were committing. In the south there still is some hatred for the minority of african americans, but its never got out of hand since that speech shook america and got us to wake up. Now we live in a world where men and women have equal opportunities and i think it has alot to do with that speech.

In Mortimer Adler's essay on " The Pursuit of Truth" boils down to the idea that all human beings have a moral obligation to pursue "the truth." He believes that human beings are capable of rational thought and can use that thought to identify basic truths.
Alder defines truth as knowable, verifiable, and universal. He says that science is the key to identifying these truths. before science, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the solar system. Anyone who believed that today, would be making very bad decision.
Adler notes that in mathematics and the hard sciences,truth can be established through the use of proofs and the scientific methods. He notes that not every scientist has to agree that the scientific methods proves a truth, but when the vast majority of them agree with a proposition there's fairly good evidence that the proposition is true.
Alder writes that there are areas where disagreement abounds, and these are matters od personal taste. When it comes to cultural preferences, there is no truth but rather likes and dislikes. Alder believes that legitimate arguments can only occur over disputes in finding the truth of a matter and any arguments over personal taste may be fun but are ultimately without value.
Alder doesn't address the "softer sciences." The study of anthropology, sociology, political, public administration, economics, psychology, and even history the rigor of the scientific methods to test hypothesis is softer than in hard science. There is more room for debate. What people once thought absolutely true, is later found to be false. So the owning of human beings by others was once thought to be permissible and even supported biblically, but is now seen as absolutely wrong. Likewise the positions on women's suffrage and civil rights have evolved in the last century and what was the truth long ago is no longer considered the truth today. "If no one had ever challenged religious authority, there’d be no democracy, no public schools, women’s rights, improvements to science and medicine, evolution of slavery and no laws against child abuse or spousal abuse.
Martin Luther King wants little children one day live in a nation where they willn't be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King said that he had a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Reference:
Mary Griffith, Martin Luther King "I had a Dream" and Six Great Ideas - The pursuit of Truth - Mortimer J. Adler