Webster defines racism like this:
The second definition is dependent on the first of course. The idea of racism is that by virtue of genes or arbitrary physical characteristics, one person is better than another. The second definition is really a modification: the behavior and policy that often stem from such an ideology.
Definition one is an ideology. Two is the action.
These days I think we use the term more often for the second definition... even when the criteria of the first are missing... and this simply leads to misunderstanding. The racial problem of our time.
The situation with Don Imus is a good example for bringing this to mind. But the dynamic occurs quite often and takes this format:

1. White Guy says something insensitive about race, a foot-in-mouth moment. Sometimes it's just a slip-up, sometimes regular behavior. Often the intention is not bad- it's either for a laugh or to make a point... the language is insensitive in any case and ends up overshadowing whatever the real message might be.
2. Enter the minority or minority spokesman in knee-jerk fashion. The intentions are usually good... but heavy-handed. There seems to be a desire to take control rather than to discuss... and the real problem is that the phenomenon to be discussed is totally mischaracterized.
3. Enter reactionary forces. Discussion is ignored again. Now any chance of speaking about the real problem, either the insensitivity or the original message, is lost. A counterattack is launched at the people from #2. Again there is mischaracterization.

To sum up 2 and 3 above... it really looks like this:
Knee-jerk 1 (at original messenger): Racist!
Knee-jerk 2 (at knee-jerk 1): Racist!
Knee-jerk 1 (at knee-jerk 2): Racist!
Repeat.
Note the lack of any real discussion.

Now it is often said by some neo-nazis and actual racists that this same dynamic is used against them to silence them... but don't you believe it. Referring to someone as racist who indeed does believe in doctrines of racial superiority is no more a sin than calling a shoe footwear. When someone is claiming, for example, that blacks are inherently disposed toward violence- that's racist. Calling them a racist does not cut the discussion, it merely puts the truth out there. The refusal of such a person to recognize his/her own racism or the chickenheartedness to continue defending their racist babbling- that's what kills the dialogue. And it's no big loss.
But what is lost is that most people in this country are not neo-nazis or racists. Most of us see problems in "the black community" and realize that the cause is something social, cultural, economic, political- something other than race. Most of us know that every race provides good people and bad, scholars and dunces... We get it.
So for most of us (minus a significant but small portion that the rest of us could do with out) racism as an ideology is indeed dead...
But definition 2 lives on... But is it really racism? Can the action be racism without the ideology behind it? Maybe... but I don't think it's helpful to look at it that way. Rather today these lingerings are racial problems, more misunderstanding than hate, more foot-in-mouth than slander.

The original messenger in my dynamic is not a racist. He's a guy that doesn't think much about it. It's no coincidence he's usually a white man. White men generally (if healthy) don't think in terms of race and gender. When we make generalities on that basis, we do it almost in a sleepwalk. We never question why there are plenty of jokes and stereotypes about blacks... but we can't think of any for whites... and when we do come across such jokes we find it unjust! How? We don't really think about it. We think racism is dead. Differences in people should be open for jokes... friendly jabs, ya know?
Imus is such a person. No hate for other races. No actual belief that white men are superior. Just a feeling that nothing is sacred- it's all up for laughs... And totally obliveous to the fact that there don't seem to be any stereotypes or jokes he'd use for a "regular ol' white guy". And he's not alone in that. We can only hope that the scandal was a wakeup call- but maybe not after people mischaracterize him and try to do all but destroy his career!

Knee-jerk #1 isn't a racist. He's a "crusader", looks for injustice to right. Generally a good guy... but maybe too self-righteous to look in the mirror or to empathize a bit with the "enemy". Too quick to seek and destroy rather than to win over hearts and minds. Preacherman. In subjects of sacredness, there is no room for gray. Just black and white. The "enemy" wasn't just a regualr guy. He was a racist and had to be stopped before his hate could spread!
And perhaps the behavior they criticize is "racist" by definition 2. But rather than take it as it is... the "crusader" attributes a hate and a superiorist ideology that just isn't there. The joke's on the "crusader". The meaning of the crusade is lost in the violence of it.

Knee-jerk #2 isn't a racist. He's a bit more sensitive than the original messenger. He thinks before he talks. But his first step is to find hypocrisy in Knee-jerk 1. And it is there... but it really changes the subject, doesn't it? In doing so, Knee-jerk 2 overlooks a lot of what is applicable in the "crusader"'s mission, some applicable to him.
Because knee-jerk 2 also sees only racism definition 2. He attributes the #1. He fails to see that the social, economic, political playing field might not be level yet... fails to even imagine how kneejerk 1 can even think that it's not level. He fails to see that what Kneejerk 1 is talking about is not based on genes or physical traits... but on social structure- whether real or imagined. Kneejerk 2 is also above empathizing with the "enemy".

To sum it up, each side vilifies the other. Each side paints the other in the most cynical light while never confronting it's own demons. The original guy becomes a scapegoat. The discussion becomes a war... and in the end, nothing is resolved.

Come to think of it... this isn't just a microcosm for race issues. This is a microcosm for human interaction in general. Hopefully some day we will overcome... but we won't do it by dividing ourselves into allegiences and false consciousnesses... but only by accepting ourselves and others as individuals and the circumstances we create as being more than they appear in our limited perspectives.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III