When I posted a blog about Harry Connick Jr. objecting to a group of Australian performers wearing blackface, many readers suggested that it was silly to take offense to the Jackson Jive's performance because group members were of Indian and Lebanese descent and, therefore, couldn't be racist. I tried to explain that the ethnicity of the performers was irrelevant, as people of color are capable of racist behavior as well.

Tyra Banks of "America's Next Top Model" is a case in point. The supermodel-turned-television personality created an uproar last week when her show featured white contestants in dark makeup. The goal was to make the girls appear to be biracial. Banks called it a "fashion interpretation" of culture.

But Dodai Stewart, deputy editor for women's site Jezebel.com, took issue with the "biracial" shoot.

"Race is not silver eye shadow, a bubble skirt or couture gown," she remarked. "It's not something you put on for a photo shoot to seem 'edgy.' Race is not trendy."

Although Stewart, who is biracial, hoped the fact that Banks is black would make her more racially sensitive, Stewart did not completely vilify the television star.

"I have to assume her intent was probably to showcase biracial beauty," Stewart said. "Is this a case in which the action can be forgiven if the motive comes from a good place?"

I'm not sure the intent matters if an act proves to be racially insensitive. Those hurt by racist behavior likely don't care if a perpetrator meant no harm. Take the Jackson Jive, for example. I doubt that those performers had any clue that wearing blackface would offend Harry Connick Jr. and other Americans. The fact of the matter is that their behavior hurt nonetheless.

These recent displays of blackface in fashion--from "America's Next Top Model" to Vogue--do raise questions about whether there can ever be an artistic reason for a white person to don dark makeup. Do these fashion shoots challenge the construct of race for both models and their audiences, or do they simply reduce race to costume?

No baggy pants, no baseball caps, no athletic wear.

These items are among the apparel bars and clubs across the country ban to keep out a certain element. But are African Americans the element they have in mind? According to Macon D., who is white and runs the blog Stuff White People Do, the answer is yes. To make his case, Macon pointed out the public uproar surrounding six black Washington University students denied entry into a Chicago bar Oct. 17 during their senior class trip to the city.

The students claim that white classmates, also wearing baggy pants, were allowed into Mother's Original bar. In addition, the students say that they offered to go back to their hotel and change but were told even switching clothes wouldn't get them into the bar. Adding insult to injury for the students is that the senior class had contacted Mother's before their trip, according to senior class treasurer, Regis Murayi. The treasurer helped plan the Chicago trip to find himself unable to celebrate with his classmates.

"We had prearranged this agreement," he told the Tribune. "We had spoken to these people prior. We had brought a lot of business to them."

In response to their treatment, the students last week filed complaints with the Illinois attorney general's office, the Chicago Commission on Human Relations and the U.S. Justice Department, the Tribune reported.

For its part, Mother's says that some blacks were allowed inside of the bar on Oct. 17 and that gang violence in the area prompted the baggy pants ban. That's fine, but if Mother's is to have such a ban in place it must forbid not just black men who wear baggy pants but white men, Asian men, etc. Assuming that any black man who wears baggy pants belongs to a gang amounts to racism, and if Mother's made this assumption, I hope swift action is taken against the bar.

Mother's human resources manager may have told the Tribune that some blacks were allowed inside, but I'm curious to know if these blacks were male or female. It's no secret that bars benefit from having plenty of female patrons. Also, black women are unlikely to be stereotyped as gang members. Given this, it says little if Mother's allowed attractive black women into the club while denying entry to black men it labeled dangerous.

Unfortunately, this dress code incident isn't isolated. Macon D. posted a roundup of dress codes at bars and clubs nationwide that have sparked cries of racism. One dress code I found particularly disturbing barred admission to anyone with dreadlocks, braids or cornrows, all traditionally black hairstyles. If this isn't a move to keep out blacks, I don't know what is. African Americans of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds style their hair in such ways, so this clearly targets far more than potential gang members.

So, what's going on here? Are these dress restrictions simply 21st century code for "no coloreds allowed?"

By now, you've likely heard about the Louisiana justice of peace who recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license. The justice's move has sparked public outcry.

After all, no matter his opinions on interracial unions, it's no longer illegal for mixed couples to marry. Therefore, Keith Bardwell, the justice of peace in question, overstepped his bounds by refusing a marriage license to Terence McKay, who is black, and Beth Humphrey, who is white. Quotes attributed to Bardwell suggest that the justice considers his refusal to grant McKay and Humphrey a marriage license to be an act of conscience.

According to MSNBC.com, Bardwell said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Bardwell also commented that he feels neither blacks nor whites accept the children produced by interracial unions.

He shrunk away from the suggestion that racism motivated his actions.

"I'm not a racist," he told the Associated Press. "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

The fact that Bardwell is patting himself on the back for allowing African Americans to use his bathroom speaks volumes. Separate bathrooms for whites and blacks, along with interracial marriage bans, are relics of the past. That Bardwell is proud of himself for allowing blacks to use his restroom suggests that he still views African Americans as inherently different from whites. Despite his claims to the contrary, his words and actions, alike, belie a racist mindset. The top excuse racists use to protest interracial marriage is the fate of mixed-race children. This reasoning is rooted in the "tragic mulatto" myth which suggests that biracial children are doomed to be tortured misfits whose black ancestry prohibits them from reaping the privileges that white people enjoy. The problem with the tragic mulatto myth is that it blames biracial people for any distress they might endure rather than racism. In reality, mixed-race individuals have emerged as leaders in American society for centuries--from abolitionist Frederick Douglass to President Barack Obama.

There's no denying that biracial people, like any oppressed group, face challenges. But by teaching mixed-race kids to embrace each of their cultures, placing them in schools that celebrate diversity and living in multicultural communities, raising biracial children who are happy and healthy isn't a problem. There's no reason the tragic mulatto myth should be perpetuated in 2009.

As for Keith Bardwell, I have one question: Do you realize that marriage isn't necessary for biracial children to be born? Interracial marriage was banned until the 1960s, yet mixed-race children have been staples of American society since colonial times. Louisiana, in particular, was one of the states where miscegenation boomed. Just read the works of Kate Chopin, who published literature in the late 1880s, to spot this trend. Her writing, much of which takes place in Louisiana, is filled with a catalogue of mixed-race characters. References to "mulattoes," "quadroons" and "octoroons" occupy her pages.

Rush Limbaugh blamed "Obama's America" for derailing his effort to be part-owner of the St. Louis Rams.

The conservative commentator made the remark today on his radio show, according to ESPN.com.

Earlier this year, a group reportedly approached Limbaugh about joining them in a bid to buy the Rams. When word spread recently about Limbaugh's ambitions, however, NFL union leader DeMaurice Smith, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Indiana Colts owner Jim Irsay voiced concerns about having a divisive figure like Limbaugh involved in the league. This led the group that had approached Limbuagh about joining them in the bid to announce Wednesday that they'd dropped him. It's not just that Limbaugh is Republican--so are many NFL team owners--it's that the radio personality has made remarks deemed polarizing at best and racist at worst.

Six years ago, Limbaugh stirred up controversy after commenting on ESPN show "Sunday NFL Countdown" that support of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was race-related.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL," he said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Historically, African American players were excluded from the quarterback position because quarterbacks are supposed to be intelligent, a quality seen as lacking in blacks. After suggesting that eagerness to right this wrong rather than McNabb's skill was responsible for the support he received, Limbaugh was forced to resign from ESPN. He'd essentially equated McNabb's rise to quarterback with affirmative action.

More offensive than the McNabb comment was when Limbaugh reportedly said in 2007, "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

I find it curious that Limbaugh would seek to purchase an organization he believes consists of thugs or thug wanna-bes. On the other hand, it's very easy to see why black players throughout the league would make a point to say that they would never play for the Rams if Limbaugh served as co-owner. African Americans make up two-thirds of the NFL. Therefore, Limbaugh's remarks alienated most of the league's community. I would hope that this teaches Limbaugh a lesson, but that seems unlikely. The radio host took no responsibility for his failed attempt to buy the Rams. ESPN reported:

"Limbaugh said the real reason he's out is the (National Football League Players' Association's) attempt to influence negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. 'It's designed to intimidate the owners, frighten the owners, and say, 'We're running this league now, gang, not you.'"

Clearly, Limbaugh jests. The real reason he was dropped from the bid is because his racially divisive rhetoric made him a liability. Had he been allowed to co-own the Rams, angry fans could have caused advertising to be pulled from the NFL.

"There's an argument that says the very principles Rush espouses--the free market--are what did him in," conservative radio host Michael Smerconish remarked. "This is the free market. These are private businessmen who made a decision about what was in the best business interest of their thriving venture."

I can't say I feel sorry for Limbaugh. After all, when Chicago was ruled out as a candidate to host the Olympics, he seemed ecstatic. Why? Because Obama had failed, and Limbaugh made no bones about wanting the President to fail when Obama first took office. Why would Limbaugh expect the NFL and America overall to cheer him on now, then? His insistence on blaming his downfall on "Obama's America" doesn't help matters. This is the same sort of racially coded language that made his bid fail.

If Limbaugh should ever decide to bid for an NFL team again, he'd do best to follow the lead of late Republican politician and football player Jack Kemp. Rather than stereotype and alienate black players, Kemp advocated for them, helping to lead the effort to have an all-star game move from New Orleans to Houston when black players complained of discrimination in the Big Easy. Despite his conservative politics, Kemp sought to support blacks in the NFL and otherwise.