HERE'S a saying I coined to the effect that "White America giveth and white America taketh away". This, of course, is a variation on the well-known religious text and I came up with it during the firestorm of controversy that followed on from the Janet Jackson breast-flashing incident at the Superbowl a few years back.

At the time I spoke of the pull-out-all-the-stops adulation that is sometimes conferred on African-American entertainers, sportsmen and other celebrities by white America, a scenario that I privately refer to as the "Oprah Winfrey Syndrome".

But woe betide the black personality who falls from grace.

It's clear to me that a black celebrity who is perceived to have stepped out of line in the eyes of white America will pay a far heavier price than a transgressor who happens to be white.

This reality is often not recognised by white society. And despite the fact slavery was abolished in the United States more than 140 years ago and the last vestiges of legally-enforced segregation collapsed in the 1960s and '70s, we have yet to put the whole question of America's racial divide to rest.

The white community will frequently ask why blacks keep pushing the racial issue? What bearing does it have in a society that is technically supposed to be colour-blind ? one in which merit and individual effort count for far more than ethnicity?

Blacks who raise the topic of ongoing, institutionalised racial discrimination in the US are, more often than not, dismissed as troublemakers and firebrands who are simply "playing the race card."

But the question ? and nature ? of racism remains an ever present reality for the descendants of African slaves. And recently we were all reminded of its insidious nature and continuing existence in 21st century America.

Twice in recent weeks racism demonstrated that it was alive and well and living in middle America.

The first incident involved the racial outbursts of Michael Richards, who used to co-star in the popular Seinfeld situation comedy ? now in reruns but still remembered fondly as a groundbreaking TV show of its kind.

During an appearance at a Los Angeles comedy club, Richards overreacted the heckling of two black audience members. He lost his head and his cool and began to hurl epithets that made liberal use of the N-word at the hecklers. Richards even seemed to suggest he wasn't born during the period, which peaked some 60 or 70 years ago, when black people could find themselves lynching victims with the perpetrators enjoying what amounted to immunity from prosecution for perpetrating such homicidal acts of violence.

In retrospect, even Michael Richards seemed to be shocked at his own display of racism. When he went on the David Letterman show a few nights after the incident in question, he insisted he was no racist and apologised profusely for his comments.

But this isn't the first time in recent years that a public figure has given vent to private racist feelings.

Just last year William Bennett, a former US Education Secretary and ? believe it or not ? the author of the best-selling , infuriated the African-American community while responding to a caller on his talk radio show.

A caller to the show proposed the bizarre idea that the US Social Security system might be solvent today if abortion hadn't been permitted following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The following is a transcript of what ensued: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn'tnever touches this at all. Assuming they're all productive citizens? : Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue. Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think asabortion disproportionately occur among single women? No. I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah. All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts bothyou know, one of the arguments in this book that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate. : Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Bennett later angrily claimed his remarks had been taken out of context but they are presented in context here ? and I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Richards and Bennett are just two prominent American figures whose comments underscore the fact that the problem of race remains the great unanswered question for the United States.

In fact, some would argue that the only real change in the state of race relations in the US is the fact non-white peoples have decisively won one major battle ? and that is we have succeeded in making open displays of racism completely unacceptable, liable to produce severe public criticism and even sanctions (Michael Richards, for instance, has not had many bookings in the aftermath of his racist comedy club antics).

Frankly, this highly developed intolerance of racist displays is such that a black person who indulged in a well-publicised instance of "reverse racism" could easily find him or herself on the receiving end of similar criticism or sanctions.

But what lies behind these expressions of hidden racism in a day and age when we like to believe we have left such behaviour and thinking behind us? We want to believe this is an era of enlightened racial tolerance but how far have we really moved down the road to ending racism?

Are we all that enlightened when it comes to race relations or are there still hidden triggers that, when fired, reveal manifestations of deeply-held racial feelings?

I mentioned Janet Jackson at the outset because I sincerely believe the reaction ? or overreaction ? of white America to her "wardrobe malfunction" was unduly harsh and entirely disproportionate.

In fact, even the US Congress got into the act with some members calling for the Federal Communications Commission to impose massive fines on both the performer and the CBS television network (which carried the Superbowl). Janet Jackson's scheduled Grammy Award appearance was cancelled as a result of the incident and a movie biography in which she was scheduled to portray jazz legend Lena Horne suddenly found itself without financing.

Contrast all of this to the slap-on-the-wrist reaction to the antics of her co-singer at the Superbowl, Justin Timberlake, who actually caused the "wardrobe malfunction". Justin Timberlake made a televised apology for his role in the incident and then flew off to London to accept a music award. All was forgioven and forgotten in double-quick time.

In the past I have spoken of another well-known manifestation of the peculiarities of race relations in modern America and the strong reactions these peculiarities can sometimes elicit.

We all remember O.J. Simpson, the gifted American football running back who parlayed his sporting celebrity into a second career in the movies and as an advertising icon on television.

He was once one of white America's all-time heroes and was affectionately known as "The Juice" by most of the country.

But then he was accused of killing his white ex-wife and a white friend in a vicious attack at her suburban Los Angeles home and ? worst of all in the eyes of white America ? he beat the rap in a televised murder trial that held America's rapt attention for months on end.

Thereafter Simpson's name became mud among white Americans, a situation I am convinced he does not fully understand in the wake of his recent attempts to make money out of the whole sordid affair.

But, still, even the much-publicised, much-analysed Simpson affair doesn't really answer the question as to whether there are hidden triggers that keep racism alive in the white American psyche. In fact, I have my own theory which may ? in part ? explain America's ongoing struggle with the question of racism.

The fact is America needs a scapegoat for its social and economic failings and that scapegoat has ? more often than not ? been the black community. How else can you explain the fact that when whites commit the most hideous crimes imaginable, they blame non-existent black perpetrators ? and tend to be believed, at least initially, by law enforcement agencies?

Who can forget Boston's infamous Charles Stuart case in 1990? Stuart, a wealthy white businessman on the way home with his pregnant wife from a childbirth class at Brigham & Women's Hospital, was supposedly shot in the abdomen by a black robber but managed to use his car phone to summon aid for his mortally wounded wife.

Stuart, eventially jumped to his death from a bridge over Boston's Mystic River as police were moving in to arrest him for committing her murder ? but not before his accusations about the non-existent black attacker rekindled racial tensions in a city that had seemed on the way to solving them.

The whole race relations situation in the US remains complex and unresolved ? and it will take more than well-meaning people on either side of the divide saying "Why can't we all get along? before we finally see an end to it.