However, American society is much more attuned to the fact that using the "N" word is facially color-aroused and constitutes an act of color-aroused animosity, when white people use it, and particularly when they use it blithely, as if they think no one (important enough to be considered) will be offended by it.
It seems clear from the reporting that for a number of years Governor Perry told his friends and supporters, "Let's meet up at "N-head." This is an example of "extreme color-aroused disorder" (ECAD). You can see that it is by the amount of blowback he's now receiving and the risk that it could end his political career, as the maccaca (sp?) epithet ended Goerge Allen(sp?)'s senatorial aspirations and perhaps his public political career.
Two of the problems with the word and use of the term "racism" are that:
(1) we immediately start asking whether a particular act constitutes "racism," which reflects our lack of a clear and commonly understood definition of "racism", and
(2) once we decide that an act constitutes "racism," then we feel obliged to take yet another step and decide if someone "is" a "racist."
If an act or acts of color-aroused antagonism end your political career then that is a strong indication that the act or acts of color-aroused antagonism are "severe" in nature.
If you lose your job because of an act or acts of color-aroused antagonism, then that, too, is an indication that the color-aroused antagonism is "severe" enough to be affecting your career in a very negative way.
We should decide what constitutes "severe" color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior disorder by examining the circumstances to determine the degree to which the symptoms are impairing the individual in important areas of life, e.g. public perception, social standing, economic standing, work history and present work efforts, and political careers.
By that standard, it's clear that Governor Perry presently has a difficulty with color-aroused antagonism (whether he knows it or not). If the extreme behavior continues for six months or more then his color-aroused antagonism's extreme nature render him diagnosable with Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECAD). Just because he has this disorder today does not mean that he will still have it six months or a year from now, which will further frustrate those who want to declare others to be "racists" and then, once having so branded them, to continually fight or dismiss them because of what they once were and possibly, but not necessarily, continue to be.
Contrary to what many people believe, there really is nothing wrong with bringing the scientific process into the area once called "racism." It doesn't hurt us to look at things in a consistently methodical and objective way.
Admittedly, one of the theoretical difficulties with the diagnosis of Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder it that it depends upon subjective circumstances. One could argue that being involved in the slave trade was not Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder because it actually helped white people to build their wealth and standing in their communities and internationally. To that, I would respond that engaging in the slave trade involved color-aroused animosity and antagonism, even though the white social reference group most important to other whites approved of the practices at the time at the time. Antagonism is antagonism regardless of the times.
Some people don't want the scientific method mixed with their "racism" accusations. It is true that many people WANT to be carried along by their unguided emotions and entirely subjective opinions. These people should not be in a position to judge what constitutes Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECAD). Anti-scientific people, like those who continue to rely on the concepts and epithets of "racism" and "racist" respectively simply lack the intellectual rigor and discipline that is required to participate usefully in any discussion of Extreme Color-Aroused Disorder (ECAD).