Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yeah I see what you mean. I don't know what to say about those sort of things.
I suppose they might say that white people already have enough support and don't need a White caucus since in effect they have one. It does cause some division. At one point to they decide to dismantle such things?
I'm all for helping certain segments, but the idea that even if a white person who wanted to help the cause wanted to join he can't because he is white.
That really stymies progress in my opinion. It also ignores the idea that a lot of equal rights progress have been helped by white people.
We obviously made a lot of progress on race-politics during the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Much of the credit for the progress goes to the left. It was kind of an anomoly that collectivists took on this mantle instead of individualists, but that was what happened.
But then in the 80's and beyond, when we were ready to move into a new phase of MLK's dream, the left seemed to realized that they had greatly benefited politically from the fight against racism, and thus did not want it to go away. Hence the proliferation of race-baiting by people like Al Sharpton, which predictably has tended to move us backwards, away from progress towards MLK's dream.
When millions and millions of blacks interact with millions and millions of whites everyday with no problem then racism has been dealt with.
Sure you can find a few examples of racism here and there and extrapolate that to the entire U.S. population. But only a dumb arse liberal would believe it.
I'm confused. I didn't know this had anything to do with liberals or conservatives. The OP didn't mention anything about politics.
Oh yeah I see what you mean. I don't know what to say about those sort of things.
I suppose they might say that white people already have enough support and don't need a White caucus since in effect they have one. It does cause some division. At one point to they decide to dismantle such things?
I'm all for helping certain segments, but the idea that even if a white person who wanted to help the cause wanted to join he can't because he is white.
That really stymies progress in my opinion. It also ignores the idea that a lot of equal rights progress have been helped by white people.
Thank you for one of the rare honest replies here.
Oh yeah I see what you mean. I don't know what to say about those sort of things.
I suppose they might say that white people already have enough support and don't need a White caucus since in effect they have one. It does cause some division. At one point to they decide to dismantle such things?
I'm all for helping certain segments, but the idea that even if a white person who wanted to help the cause wanted to join he can't because he is white.
That really stymies progress in my opinion. It also ignores the idea that a lot of equal rights progress have been helped by white people.
I don't recall the CBC saying that you couldn't join.
I network here in Columbus with the NWBO(national women's business owners') group. They're happy to have my input. I respect what their cause and I don't overstep my boundaries. I understand why the group exists.
I'm confused. I didn't know this had anything to do with liberals or conservatives. The OP didn't mention anything about politics.
It's always liberals running around talking about racism. If there isn't any racism to be found, like in the Trevon Martin case, they just play make believe and say it's because of race. And it's only other dopey liberals that believe that bs.
And if you didn't notice, this thread is in the "Politics" area of C-D. Therefore I will mention politics if I want.
I appreciate you following me around and making sure I only post things you approve of though.
Most people don't care enough to do that for me. Gracious.
We obviously made a lot of progress on race-politics during the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Much of the credit for the progress goes to the left. It was kind of an anomoly that collectivists took on this mantle instead of individualists, but that was what happened.
But then in the 80's and beyond, when we were ready to move into a new phase of MLK's dream, the left seemed to realized that they had greatly benefited politically from the fight against racism, and thus did not want it to go away. Hence the proliferation of race-baiting by people like Al Sharpton, which predictably has tended to move us backwards, away from progress towards MLK's dream.
You might want to revisit the 50s, 60s and 70s. It was Republicans that supported civil rights legislation.
Democrats were against it.
There were expections of course. But the Civil Rights movement could not have happened without the right. The majority of the left was against it.
I'm confused. I didn't know this had anything to do with liberals or conservatives. The OP didn't mention anything about politics.
I notice someone else brought politics into this and you didn't bother to "call" them out.
How predictable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
