nimh wrote:Without going into ebrown's question, I'll pick up on this by Fishin':
fishin wrote:I do find it interesting however that in your initial post you mentioned "For example, the attacks on Americans who support their rights through La Raza. " and yet, by LaRaza's own admission, they ARE a racist organization. Their own WWW site says "The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) - the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States - works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans."
Why do they only advocate to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans? Why don't you label them as racists? "Hispanic" is certainly a much more racist term than "illegal immigrant" is. Is fighting racism with racism acceptable?
Are you being facetious? Is your argument that if an organisation "works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans," it is ipso facto racist?
Doesnt being racist by definition imply that one believes one's own race is
superior to others?
Not necessarily.
rac·ism
-noun
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
You chose only one of the possible definitions for racism. People can (and do) discriminate based on race (the 2nd definition) without necessarily falling into the trap of the 1st definition.
Quote:An organisation focusing its work on improving opportunities for Hispanic Americans no more necessarily implies it believes Hispanic Americans are superior than that an organisations working to defend the interests of pensioners proves it believes older people are superior. Or than an organisation aiming to improve farmers' quality of life believes agricultural workers are superior.
Again, superiority isn't a required element. But an organization focusing on improving conditions only for Hispanic Americans is certainly
discriminating based on race. A group that focuses it's interests basede on age would be ageist - not racist, etc. It isn't a factor of superiority. It is a factor of discrimination. A person can discriminate (either for or against) without having a feeling of superiority.
Quote:There are NGOs focusing on improving the lot of groups based on age, profession, ethnicity, income, whether one lives in a city or village, what state or region one lives in, whether one is a veteran, etc. No group superiority implied.
Hispanic Americans (or Latinos or whatever the right word now is) have things in common, just like African Americans have things in common but also like pensioners or poor people or women or midwesterners have things in common. Things that politicians get to make important decisions about, too. So they can organise accordingly to defend their group interests - in NOW or AARP or NAACP. A poor, retired, Hispanic midwestern woman may join all respective organisations, who each work to improve the opportunities for those respective groups. It could be that you dont like interest groups, but "working to improve opportunities for [Group X]" doesnt in itself in any way imply a racist belief in Group X's superiority.
Unless that group is working to improve conditions for whites. Then, of course, it is by default, racist.
Quote:Hell, there might be an organisation here in Budapest helping Dutch immigrants to better find their way about, more easily find the opportunities to find a job or an apartment or whatnot - I know the Dutch embassy is quite active. Would such an organisation be racist too? (The Dutch are of the Germanic race after all, the Hungarians not..)
To my knowledge there is no recognized racial classification for "Dutch". presumably, if an organization was setup to help Dutch immigrants it would do so based on the individual's citzenship as opposed to their race. As examples - every Mexican-American organization I know of requires only that any prospective member have a tie to Mexico and the U.S.. They could be of Jewish or African descent but if they have parents, grandparents, etc.. that were Mexican citizens and they now live in the U.S. they'd be afforded membership. They aren't required to be Hispanic. The same applies to Italian-American, Franco-American, Sino-American, etc.. organizations. The distinction is based on a geographic location or nationality - not a racial classification.
A group that bases it's membership on racial classifications - be it Hispanc, African, Caucassian, Asian, etc.. is, by definition, racist.
Neither NOW nor AARP base their membership criteria or their groups interests on race. NOW is (at least in some regards) a sexist organization but supports all women regardless of race. AARP is (almost entirely) an ageist organization but supports all those over 55 regardless of race. The NAACP, unlike La Raza, is all inclusive. They list their mission statement as "
The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. " All persons? I don't see any racial limitation there. (There may have been at one time, I don't know, but it isn't in their current statement.)
Not all classifications are taboo. Some are (i.e. race, religion, etc..) while others aren't (profession, income, etc...). Others are boderline where some people take offense and others don't (Ageism, physical ability, etc...) and the level of offense implied/recognized is a matter of public debate.
Hey little man, who you callin' "whitey"?
.jpg)
.jpg)