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.
Yes it is and if they want to have blackcentric meetings before inviting others to participate I see nothing wrong with that.
I know there plenty of whites involved in the civil rights movement, but pretending it wasn't a black led movement is the height of denial.
No one is pretending it wasnt. During the civil right movement the leaders, black leaders, recognized that they were going to need white people on their side to gain support of other white people and white leaders. They brought in those people, "big ten (four white guys)", most likely as a strategic move to help their cause as well as welcoming other races to be involved in all aspects. Early feminists did the same thing. They could not have progressed with their movement as they did without the help and support of men.
Having "blackcentric" meetings is fine but that is not what BLM is doing. They are publicly banning the white race, they are telling them to move to the back, they are shouting black only, publicly segregating themselves while pretending to want to bring to light and work to eliminate issues that supposedly only affect the black communities. They will not get support from other races or the community at large this way.
No one is pretending it wasnt. During the civil right movement the leaders, black leaders, recognized that they were going to need white people on their side to gain support of other white people and white leaders. They brought in those people, "big ten (four white guys)", most likely as a strategic move to help their cause as well as welcoming other races to be involved in all aspects. Early feminists did the same thing. They could not have progressed with their movement as they did without the help and support of men.
Having "blackcentric" meetings is fine but that is not what BLM is doing. They are publicly banning the white race, they are telling them to move to the back, they are shouting black only, publicly segregating themselves while pretending to want to bring to light and work to eliminate issues that supposedly only affect the black communities. They will not get support from other races or the community at large this way.
Cut the BS....what black organization or individuals, that have called out racism and stood up against a racist system.....have you embraced or supported? It does not matter what BLM do.....people are going to hate on them for the simple fact that blacks that have stood up and have spoken out against a racist system have always been shot down.....figuratively and literally!
No, it's a far-fetched scenario you have concocted based on nothing more than wishful thinking. There is no reason to think that blacks, had they been regular agricultural workers instead of slaves in the old South, would have accumulated significant wealth. They would have been poor, like other non-slaves who did that sort of work. And of course they never would have come to America in the first place if not for slavery.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe those slaves didn't WANT to come here? I mean, there are lots of great places around the world, but don't you think it would be kind of nice to have a choice about whether or not you go there?
That may be the single most absurd argument I have seen on here yet.
Well luckily for you "because the govt says so" is about a .01% part of the reasoning. You'd have to understand the commerce clause and its part in the civil rights act to understand the difference between private association and business.
If there had been no slave trade, Africans simply would not have gone to America in the 17th and 18th centuries. They would have stayed in Africa, their descendants living today would be Africans, and the vast majority of them would be much poorer than present day African Americans. People living in sub-Saharan Africa 200-400 years ago did not have the inclination or capability to initiate travel across the oceans to build new lives in far away lands, so it's useless to speculate about how they would have fared if they had.
You are implying that not only should black people forget all about racism, but that they should be grateful for slavery, because it brought them here. Can you not see that, and can you not understand why it is so offensive?
Cut the BS....what black organization or individuals, that have called out racism and stood up against a racist system.....have you embraced or supported? It does not matter what BLM do.....people are going to hate on them for the simple fact that blacks that have stood up and have spoken out against a racist system have always been shot down.....figuratively and literally!
Think what you will but the way in which people or groups conduct themselves does matter.
I'd say Martin Luther King had more support and did more to advance the civil rights movement than did Malcolm X and the black panthers. Perhaps you disagree.
There will always be some racist people. Honestly I dont think we as a society will ever raise above it 100%. On the flip side there will always be people who stand for unity, peace and equality. Black people who have spoken out have been both supported and shot down, women who have spoken out have been both supported and shot down, gays who have spoken have been both supported and shot down. It is what it is. Groups have struggled and fought against discrimination and injustice since the beginnings.
So one can go around with a huge chip on their shoulder and emulate the exact bigotry and hatred they are fighting against or they can actually believe in and promote true peace, unity and equality.
And why should I embrace or support a black organization, not that I have been approached to do so?
What women's organizations that have called out and stood up against a sexist system have you embraced or supported?
Think what you will but the way in which people or groups conduct themselves does matter.
I'd say Martin Luther King had more support and did more to advance the civil rights movement than did Malcolm X and the black panthers. Perhaps you disagree.
There will always be some racist people. Honestly I dont think we as a society will ever raise above it 100%. On the flip side there will always be people who stand for unity, peace and equality. Black people who have spoken out have been both supported and shot down, women who have spoken out have been both supported and shot down, gays who have spoken have been both supported and shot down. It is what it is. Groups have struggled and fought against discrimination and injustice since the beginnings.
So one can go around with a huge chip on their shoulder and emulate the exact bigotry and hatred they are fighting against or they can actually believe in and promote true peace, unity and equality.
And why should I embrace or support a black organization, not that I have been approached to do so?
What women's organizations that have called out and stood up against a sexist system have you embraced or supported?
I do not know of MLK would have as much support as he did, from outside the black community, if not for the more radical movements like that of early Malcolm X. It's kind of like the psychology that takes place with the "good cop bad cop" strategy. Deal with me......or else you are going to have to deal with this other guy. Hence, the more radical group actually HELP the ultimate struggle by creating contrasting alternatives. So there is a role in the ultimate struggle for BLM, even if they do not find general acceptance.
No it isn't. Raising awareness comes in the form of protests, public letters of intent, etc. As I said pages ago, the civil rights movement was largely a blackcentric campaign until the actual marches began. And even then, those first marches were almost all made up by black people. It wasn't until the Selma marches that more white people became involved in the movement.
That isn't a very convincing argument at all. But I guess it does make them feel good to invoke marches of a 1/2 century ago since they don't seem to have any convincing argument on their own beyond racist hate. Hence banning people from participating simply due to skin color.
I do not know of MLK would have as much support as he did, from outside the black community, if not for the more radical movements like that of early Malcolm X. It's kind of like the psychology that takes place with the "good cop bad cop" strategy. Deal with me......or else you are going to have to deal with this other guy. Hence, the more radical group actually HELP the ultimate struggle by creating contrasting alternatives. So there is a role in the ultimate struggle for BLM, even if they do not find general acceptance.
I guess it is to be seen.
I dont think that ultimatum could have been backed up though.
And BLM doesn't have a MLK.
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.
