zombie84 said:

I think he does have a point though in that certain terms are considered racist only at certain periods of time. The meaning of the word gets reappropriated. So if you called someone a negro today I think most people would say that is racist, or at the very least politically incorrect, whereas 80 years ago it was not only considered not racist but actually was the proper term to describe Africans and was used in scholarly works.

But that doesn't have anything to do with what he was saying. "Negro" simply means "black", but since it was used as a degrading term for so long, like you said, it was reappropriated.

But that is simply a linguistic phenomenon. Prior to the word "negro" becoming a taboo racial slur, it was still possible to be racist (obviously). Racism is the attitude and the way of thinking, not the words used. Words can merely be used to convey racist thought (such as suggestions that someone different from the speaker is somehow a lesser being).

Simply put, racism is the belief some races are superior to others. Oppression is not a prerequisite, but a common side effect.

A carpet is an "object", how is that much better than being called, "a thing"? Sure, you can describe someone's physical features without racial connotations, but when you are putting a negative spin on those features ("raghead", for example, obviously isn't a positive descriptor, no matter how you look at it), you really can't excuse it with lack of history of repression or with it simply being the way they look (turbans really do look like rags).