Okay, if you think being called a cracker has the same connotation as being called white, fine. There's no talking to you anymore. You have closed your eyes and ears to the rest of the world. As I said before, the way the word might have originated, and the way Malcolm X used it is completely different. The way people might have used it in 1750, and the way people use it now is completely different. Definitions, and usages change and that's what's important.
People still use the term in different ways today. I've never denied that cracker can be used in a derogatory way depending on the context. Obviously Malcolm was using it in a derogatory way in reference to racist whites in power. Here's a quote from Bill Clinton though
" You know, they think that because of who I am and where my politic[al] base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the 'cracker vote' there."
So was it a racial slur when he used it? No, it wasn't. Like I've been saying, the word itself is not a racist slur and it never has been. It can be used as a slur depending on the context, just like the term caucasoid can be used as a slur if used in a certain context.
You might interpret someone using cracker as meaning white. Someone else might think it means idiot, dumbazz or something like that (as a poster that agrees with you posted). You seem to be trying deny the fact that sometimes it is used in an attempt to demean whites. How am I the ignorant one when I posted a link to the contextual history of the word, and examples of it used historically to demean whites. Okay buddy
When ad where did you post the contextual history of the word? I called you ignorant because you admitted that you don't know the history of the word. Again I'm not denying that it can be used to demean whites depending on the context. I'm simply saying that the context in which it is used matters. Caucasoid can be used to demean whites depending on the context, does that make the word itself a racial slur?