but if you think racism has nothing to do with The Stones success you are simply wrong.

"Nothing to do" is an absolutist term which should never be used when discussing something as complex as racism and its social dynamics. I would never claim it had "nothing to do" with the Stones success.

My contentions are simply this:

1) The Stones FANS did not choose the Stones over Black artists/bands for racial reasons. They were never presented with the choice.

2) The reason they were never presented with the choice is due to the fact that the Stones’ R&B was different enough from Black R&B to be classified as "rock/pop" and not "R&B"., and thus ended up on different radio stations, primarily for economic reasons (although racism certainly comes into play in 60's programming choices, granted.)

(Here’s a question: Why were the Stones’ not played on Black-targeted R&B stations? Racism also?)

Further, this difference in classification is not solely due to the Stones giving R&B a different (and distinctive) sound; it's that the influences of the Stones were a lot more varied than you give them credit for. Nobody would sanely argue, for example. that "Paint it Black", "Salt of the Earth" or "Angie" are black-influenced music. (Of course, other popular selections WERE heavily influenced -- no argument there,)

It wasn't just preference that dertimined what youth listened to or what was played on the raido here in America it had everything to do with race.

Now, you're the one making absolutist statements. It was not "100% due to race"; that's nonsense, prima facie. There were significant economic factors at work.

I understand this is your opinion, but you're going to have to give me more evidence than a single anecdote from Phillips, whose history with Elivis preceded the Stones by over a decade.