 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because they always have been. Show me one that wasn't. |
I don't think it's possible for there to be an organization for whites that you wouldn't accuse of being racist.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
the NAACP board of directors, members in Washington DC
District of Columbia Top
Bond, Julian
Washington, DC
Hayden-Watkins, Dorothy, Ph.D
Washington, DC
Lucy, William
Washington, DC
Patterson, Myisha(Youth)
Washington, DC
Saperstein, Rabbi David N.
Washington, DC
Shearin, Sr., Rev. Morris L.
Washington, DC
Womack, Richard G.
Washington, DC
Now i dont know about Mr. Womack, but if Rabbi Saperstein, the head of the the Social Action Center of the Reform Jewish movement, is NOT Jewish, well then, somebody over there in the Reform movement has a LOT of splainin' to do

|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Whites are the dominant group. They don't need organizations. |
Oh, it's just fine to be a racist as long as you are not a member of the dominant group - well, if that is a fact, how come that people are pissed off when the minority groups make their "one colour" parties in countries as SA and Zimbabwe ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
A) It's not racism if you form a group to gain equal rights. It's racism when you are the dominant group and you form an exclusive group keeping out minorities.
|
I don't mind- actually, I approve it when when people join together to fight for equal rights, but when it is declared a one race/color/religoin only, I don't like it - actually, I think it should be fought against. I don't like racism despite what colur that it tries to make better than another.
quote:
B) People get pissed off because they want to hold on to power. |
Yeah, that is the history of humanity - though, I wouldn't join a organisation that preferred on kind over anohter.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
Me neither, but then I'm not a minority. I think the point is to form a unity. Some people think that you need to stick together with those who you can identify with for a struggle, most don't. Either way I don't think that's racism. |
Yeah, you make a unity against all others based on your own colour/religion/political state/you name it - is that really the way to become an ordinary citicen ? That is one where people doesn't care about how you look/act ? No, thet is just making you more alieanted to common society; people get scared and fronitiers drawn up.
I'm neither a part of a minority, but I really don't think that those not memeber of my majority, will gain anything if they forms a unity where my kind isn't allowed.
If they made such an organisation, why should I then not be allowed to make organisations wich opposed those ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
"your Kind"? |
Well, I consider myself as a part of the human kind - don't know what Kiddy considers himself as part of.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BlackCat
Oh, it's just fine to be a racist as long as you are not a member of the dominant group - well, if that is a fact, how come that people are pissed off when the minority groups make their "one colour" parties in countries as SA and Zimbabwe ? |
This got me thinking on that. I could see justification for a white party in Zimbabwe, maybe, where whites are a minority AND are persecuted. Though I think that would be unwise, politically. A minority advocacy party really only works in a polity where there are numerous minorities - otherwise calling yourself out as a seperate group is self defeating. South Africa would be a better possibility - but whites arent really persecuted in RSA. Theyve got some affirmative action in some parts of govt, but they still are generally affluent, and hold leading roles in the private sector, and still are part of the public sector. Which is probably why all but the extremists have avoided white parties - even the old pro-Apartheid National Party has reinvented itself as a multiracial party, appealing to mixed race South Africans especially.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BlackCat
Yeah, you make a unity against all others based on your own colour/religion/political state/you name it - is that really the way to become an ordinary citicen ? |
Using U.S. history as an example, since Black people were oppressed for their "race," it made sense for them to try and overcome that oppression as a race. Sympathetic whites could aid that struggle, but freedom is a struggle that ultimately must be made by those who aren't free. We can't make the struggle for them. If the unfree feel they need seperate organizations in order to develop their movement, it's not our place to stand in their way. The opressed need a "safe" place to develop away from the oppressor.
There is a logical reason for this. The oppressed have been psychologically beaten down, trained to defer to their "betters." At the same time, their "betters" have been trained to expect others to catter to or defer to them. This can be especially disruptive in a freedom movement, as the behavior is learned and and frequently unconciously acted out. It took me a while, for example, to learn to shut up when a woman was trying speak.
Let's invent an example. Suppose you and your brothers and sisters were physically abused by a step parent, who never hurt his/her own children (including any half-brothers or siusters). When you were finally emancipated (through reaching the age of majority, running away, the state interceding, etc.) and you decided you wanted nothing to do with the children of that hated parent, would that be immoral? Maybe one of them even tried to help you, sneaking you food, taking the blame for something that would get you punished, etc. But when you see them, all you can think about is how you were beaten and they weren't. Is it really wrong not to want to associate with your step and half siblings?
Another example. Suppose someone killed your mother. Would you want to be friends with the murderer's family?
Forcing the oppressed to associate with their oppressors isn't conducive to freedom.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|