Explain to me why/how the NAACP and La Raza are not considered "hate organizations".

[DavisJ3608]

Here's a simple answer; just don't look at a person's skin color when you're dealing with them. I work at a grocery store, and I look forward to meeting nice people and laughing at stupid ones all day long, regardless of what race they are. We've got a mix of something like 40% Caucasian, 40% Hispanic, and 10% African American, to use the PC terms. I don't care if you're any of those, but if you're a cool person and treat me with respect, you'll get the same in return. If, however, I spy you from across the store trying to go in the "out" door, I'll laugh at you, regardless of the color of your skin.

Obviously, though, the idea of different skin colors meaning different statuses has kind of been wired into our brains. I'm not saying that we're all racist (which by my definition is assuming anything about someone simply because of their race), but I am saying that we probably all think differently when we're around someone from a race we're not as familiar with. For example, because we have a relatively low black population where I live, I'll often start monitoring my thoughts more carefully when I'm talking with a black person. In an ideal world, I wouldn't do this at all, because regardless of skin color everyone is a person, but I do, and I try to at the very least keep my outward appearance the same as I would for anyone else.

The very short answer: Racism is a horrible, complicated thing.

 

[urza]

You know, he reminds me of something thats always peeved me.

Why do they have "Latino Month" on Nickelodeon and different news programs every year right around Cinco de Mayo? I mean, I'm pretty sure there's no "white people" month, or even a Scandinavian month or something. If they're going to do shit like that then do it for everyone, though I'd much rather we just abandoned the whole idea.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

I think the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was fine back in the day but now it seems to be less about getting equality and more about getting whatever they can for black people.

The chariman of the NAACP recently made the statement: "I believe gay rights are civil rights"

Oh yeah he is really stepping up to the plate there. Saying gay rights are civil rights at a gay rights dinner. Ill appreciate it when he puts his ass on the line and calls out Obama for not ending don?t ask don?t tell like he promised he would. The NAACP has usually not supported gay marriage or tied to stay neutral on the issue because most blacks(the group the NAACP works for) oppose it. http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage

JANUARY 15, 2009 -- The Equal Justice Society joined other civil rights groups today in filing an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group and did not follow the process required for fundamental revisions to the California Constitution.

In the amicus brief, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.
http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8/

The idea that blacks aren't for gay marriage...I won't say there's no truth to it, but to me? For the most part, it sounds like a bunch of bullshit being floated into the cultural dialog by the right wing to divide liberals.

It's not like dividing liberals along racial lines by fanning the flames of racial hate hasn't been the Republican Party's strategy for the last 40 years or anything:

Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum??A little raw for today,? he warned?that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading ?Dividing the Democrats.? Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in ?the Old Roosevelt Coalition,? it recommended that the White House ?exacerbate the ideological division? between the Old and New Left...Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. ?Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,? Buchanan wrote. ?We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.? Such gambits, he added, could ?cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer?currentPage=2

Dude, did you even look at the link I had? Ill post it again for you http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage it?s a pew poll from Oct of 09 and if you look at the breakdown by race of who supports and opposes gay marriage blacks oppose it the most and support it the least out of the races surveyed. And here is an article from the Equal Justice Society (sound familiar?) from 04 complaining about the NAACPs lack of action on gay rights issues http://www.nbjc.org/news/001155.html I?m not faulting the NAACP for catering to blacks, its what they do but don?t try and pretend that a less than one year track record of supporting gay rights out loud makes them an organization that just wants to promote rights for everyone. Quoting an op-ed from the New Yorker is like quoting Glenn Beck and pretending its fact.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

Dude, did you even look at the link I had? Ill post it again for you http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage it?s a pew poll from Oct of 09 and if you look at the breakdown by race of who supports and opposes gay marriage blacks oppose it the most and support it the least out of the races surveyed.

Yeah, 66% vs. 52%. Big deal. Like I said: The idea that blacks aren't for gay marriage...I won't say there's no truth to it, but to me? For the most part, it sounds like a bunch of bullshit being floated into the cultural dialog by the right wing to divide liberals.

And here is an article from the Equal Justice Society (sound familiar?) from 04 complaining about the NAACPs lack of action on gay rights issues http://www.nbjc.org/news/001155.html I?m not faulting the NAACP for catering to blacks, its what they do but don?t try and pretend that a less than one year track record of supporting gay rights out loud makes them an organization that just wants to promote rights for everyone.

Why doesn't it? You said:

"I think the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was fine back in the day but now it seems to be less about getting equality and more about getting whatever they can for black people."

You were criticizing them for their behavior "now," yet you say what they've done in the past year is not relevant? What kind of logic is that?

Quoting an op-ed from the New Yorker is like quoting Glenn Beck and pretending its fact.

1) did you just seriously compare an op-ed piece from the New Yorker to Glenn Beck?

2) did you notice that I didn't quote an op-ed from the New Yorker, I gave you an article from the New Yorker that reported on the words Pat Buchanan wrote? Can't you tell the difference in an article between the author's analysis and the author's source?

Yeah I did just compare the New Yorker to Glenn Beck. And only 26% of blacks support gay marriage according to that pole, as opposed to the 39% of whites and 45% of Hispanics. And the EJS article should sound familiar because you mentioned them when you talked about the amicus brief. The NAACP has been helping black people for over 100 years (founded in 1909) and advocating for gay rights for one year. I am not saying that what they have done in that year is irrelevant but that speaking out at a couple of fundraisers in support of an issue over the course of a year does not compare to the effort they have put forth in the past in dealing with issues that the black community cares about. Basically what I am trying to say is that the NAACP counts as a racist organization because it advocates primarily for one racial group. It?s the same reason a National Organization for the Advancement of White people would be racist.

And I guess I am too stupid to tell the dif between a New Yorker article and an op-ed peace. I would say to smart but I?m the one arguing on the internet.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Simple as that. Tell me how supporting one race for the sake of benefit is no different than withholding a benefit from someone.

Because they don't support one race, they support ALL races. Their goal is not "for the sake of benefit" it's for the sake of *equality* of benefits.

I am not going to sit here and pretend that everyone under the sun that is born with African skin in America is immediately a victim. There is a difference between racism and opportunity to declare racism.

Okay. I don't see the relevance.

Also, the members of La Raza actually attempt to affirm that many portions of Texas and California naturally belong to them, despite the fact that many "Hispanics" never technically lived in Texas or California in the first place. Plus they openly encourage breaking the law by illegal entry as well as any action deemed respectable in their own eyes.

Yeah, like Chrono said, that's nothing to do with hate, that's just illegal.

How often do you see the KKK advocating illegal immigration of whites into Africa?

Can they stop calling themselves Spanish already? It's an insult to Spain.

That's like saying Americans should stop calling their language English because it's an insult to England.

It damn well is.

 

[Mr. Mango]

They aren't considered hate groups because if they were the Democrat Party would lose a lot of votes.

It just isn't PC to condemn non-white racists. Especially treasonous ones (like La Raza).