Think about it. Your goal is to discredit all criticism from your adversary about an entity that you are seeking to protect so that your agenda can get passed through as unmolested as possible.
What benefit is there for you to be a bit more cautious and calculated about your claim that of your adversary's motivations?
The goal is to put your adversary on the defensive. The charge of RACISM works like the question "So when did you stop beating your wife?". It makes a proclamation and demands that the focus of the question PROVE that your supposition is not correct. By the time he finishes disproving the claim his adversary will force him to AGREE with them as proof that he is not a racist, wife beater.
I suggest that no one run from this claim. The best way to dislodge this fraudulent claim is to:
- Point out when Black folks really did suffer from assaults from racists
- Point out how today WE ARE suffering from assaults from people other than White folks and yet these are never labeled as "assaults upon our civil rights"
- Ask the question what influences Black people to continue voting in the monopoly for a party that already controls so many of their key institutions and yet no repudiation of this machine is ever seen. Thus if RACISM is the reason why certain Whites don't vote for Obama might it be Ideological Bigotry that is at play in the Black community which voted 96% for one party and one man despite their continued grievances with the machine?