White People's political party formed in my state

[Frankychan]

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.

B) People get pissed off because they want to hold on to power.

Bingo.

[BlackCat]

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.

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Yeah, that is the history of humanity - though, I wouldn't join a organisation that preferred on kind over anohter.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Bingo.

Dude, you're supporting Kidicious. You automatically lose.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Dude, you're supporting Kidicious. You automatically lose.

He's making more sense than you, dude.

[BlackCat]

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]

Originally posted by Frankychan


He's making more sense than you, dude.

Nah, Kiddy makes sensible statements, but they don't hold - thats why you both loose ,

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok i dunno if i can support the all white group. i lke them and all but aint all white oh hell what to do oh gee guess i need to belt out of the white thread

[Kidlicious]

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 ? 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.

The fact is that people do care what you look like. That's why minorities need to stick together to help themselves. They can't depend on others.

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.

Your kind generally doesn't want to be a part of it. They gain what they earn for themselves by working together. They don't depend on outsiders.

If they made such an organisation, why should I then not be allowed to make organisations wich opposed those ?

Why would you want to oppose them working together for mutual benefit?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

"your Kind"?

[BlackCat]

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.

[Dis]

I'm not so sure I'm part of the human kind. Other humans are vastly different from me.

[lord of the mark]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Well, I consider myself as a part of the human kind - don't know what Kiddy considers himself as part of.

You're the one who said "my kind," and please don't call me Kiddy. Kid is fine.

[chequita guevara]

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.