I write about race a lot because I feel I have something important and different to say than what’s currently coming from the airwaves, print and online media, black church pulpits, college campuses, and all the rest.
I have spoken out publicly against “black” groups, especially when people involved in such groups would scream bloody murder if “white” groups (which already exist on the fringes) went mainstream.
Now we have Choose Black America, a group of black Americans (Republicans and conservatives) opposed to illegal “immigration.”
I LOVE the idea of black Americans getting involved in the “immigration” debate and would encourage more to do so. But if the organization’s function and purpose is to lobby lawmakers and influence public policy, it ought to be race-neutral or its racial aim should be more subtle. It’s the exclusive title I don’t like.
Race-focused groups are not the problem; calling yourselves the “black” this or the “white” that, is the problem.
I know members of Choose Black America, and I support what they’re trying to do. But if we conservatives continue forming “black” groups, how can we rail against liberals who do? Illegal “immigration” hurts all of us (see How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy), even the vain elites who support it. Why not call yourselves “Choose America”?
I think I know what white readers have to say about this. Let’s hear it. And what do you black conservative readers think? Do you share my view on this?
(Hat tip: From the Pen)
Pictured: Ted Hayes, “Rasta Republican” and member of Choose Black America.
Update: Blogger and commenter Tami Gill writes:
But if the organization’s function and purpose is to lobby lawmakers and influence public policy, it ought to be race-neutral or its racial aim should be more subtle.
I can’t help but wonder if some people may have overlooked this portion of La Shawn’s post. Maybe in some specific instances, an organization that has a race-specific title or name is appropriate. But I don’t think it suffices in this case…Also, I understand that it may be somewhat tough for a person who has become used to being (or feeling) excluded in most circumstances to move away from a mindset of exclusivity. I believe that this contributes somewhat to the reason why so many of these groups continue to be formed.
Update II: Don’t misunderstand the post and stretch the implications, people!
As I explained on another blog, race-based titles aren’t wrong per se, and neither are exclusive titles in general. Discriminating between worthy and unworthy, defining your aims and goals, and gathering with whomever you choose and calling yourselves whatever you want is not wrong or bad. “Mothers Against Drunk Drivers,” fine. “Daughters of the American Revolution,” cool. Private “black” or “white” clubs, excellent! But I just don’t like the idea of appealing to the government for change through race-named groups. It’s unnecessarily exclusive and divisive.
That’s all I said, and that’s all I meant.
Our government is not supposed to be in the business of making policy decisions based on race, anyway! Me and my head-in-the-clouds ideas…
But keep this in mind: If black conservatives form race-named groups and/or have no problem with them, they will weaken their arguments against black liberals who do the same. If you don’t care one way or another, great. But if you write/speak against it but belong to such a group, charges of “Hypocrites!” will fly, and righteously so.
Commenter Dianne writes: “In my opinion, congress pays special attention to minority groups and will give some special attention to this group as well, but not as much attention as they will give to the statement of the NAACP which is undoubtedly a much more powerful organization…If Choose Black America wishes to be heard at all, I don’t think they have any choice but to racially label themselves.
She’s probably right. 
Blogger and commenter March Hare makes an important point:
Several years ago my local paper did a series of articles on the changing face of some traditionally Black neighborhoods. Latinos were moving in and many Blacks felt that the neighborhoods were losing their identity and they felt threatened. I thought then, and still do, when European-Americans felt the same way about their traditional ethnic neighborhoods, they were considered racists.
I’ve read countless articles like that. During integration, plenty of whites felt the “identity” of their neighborhoods was changing. Blacks in certain cities overrun by “Latinos” and affluent white liberals (”gentrification”) are expressing similar concerns. This race stuff is a mess, isn’t it?
I’ve always thought that race based organizations are, well, racist. The National Association for the Advancement of White People, The Race, the Congressional White Caucus, all sound racist to me.
Comment by Rancher — 07.28.06 @ 10:09 am
“I think I know what white readers have to say about this. Let’s hear it.”
I don’t know if I fit into LaShawns magically-similar-thinking ‘white reader’ category…but being white, and having just read it, I totally agree with you that uniting under skin-colour for an anti-immigration movement is fraught with non-sense/stupidity.
In my opinion, the whole anti-individual collectivist clulessness of racial group-think is some sticky kind of nonsense. Will we one day hear:
“Chinegro’s unite against the Blacktino threat to our lives!!”??
And just laugh at the idiocy of it?
I hope so. Although Where I grew up, a kid with 1/8th Mediterannean-type skin was called a ‘wog’ and treated with varying measures of contempt.
People come together through many conduits and interests - music, art, religion/spirituality, business, grief, celebration, education, etc, etc. I hope the positives thrive and the envious/insecure/idiotic race-collectives decide to join the human race one day. I don’t mean globalize and homogenize, I mean ‘free mind - ass follows’. We are each the smallest minority of one, don’t let anyone tell you what you think or are because of the colour of your parents.
Comment by JohnD — 07.28.06 @ 10:21 am
I thought it was strange when the Black Entertainment Television network was launched…..
Comment by Dave — 07.28.06 @ 10:22 am
If the group doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race or promote an agenda whose effect is that, then it’s not a racist group. I don’t see why this has gotten so complicated.
Comment by Cobb — 07.28.06 @ 10:32 am
I’m not calling such groups racist, actually, and I don’t presume to speak for others. I just think race-based names are unnecessary and divisive. Cobb, you know race complicates everything. It hasn’t “gotten” that way. It is that way.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.28.06 @ 10:35 am
I understand your concern, but I don’t totally agree.
Your post about the “Moral Reconstruction: A Model for Urban Transformation Conference” is about “transforming America’s inner cities and urban areas”. Although not stating so exactly, the purpose is to uplift black folks.
Peterson formed Bond, the “brotherhood” ie, “The Brothas” and wrote “SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America”
John McWhorter wrote ” Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America”.
Yes, Ward Connerly is pure. So, although you’ve spoken out about black groups, this conference technically qualifies.
Difficult anyway you look at it, but I think that any organization that highlights the “facts” about how illegal immigration hurts black folks is a good thing. Liberal whites are scared sh#tless over race, so this group probably will get more attention; least they be labeled racist for not covering their cause.
Regardless, keep doin’ what you do LaShawn. Love the reads.
REgards
Buck
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 07.28.06 @ 10:44 am
I hear you, Buck, but I would distinguish books and conferences about “black America” with organizations whose purposes include lobbying the government and shaping policy. As I said in an earlier comment, I think race-named groups, whether or not they discriminate and/or prevent others from joining, are divisive. More important than that is the hypocritical flavor. I can’t speak for members of the group, but I’m always railing against liberals for their black-named groups. That’s why I try to avoid joining or affiliating with “African American” or “black” organizations.
And it’s not necessary, in my view, to call a group the “black,” “white,” or “hispanic” so and so. But this is just my opinion. I don’t run anything but this blog.
And you’re right: white liberals are scared sh#tless over race (but are enamored with it at the same time!), and Choose Black America will likely get their attention because it’s black-named.
Comment by La Shawn — 07.28.06 @ 10:50 am
But if the organization’s function and purpose is to lobby lawmakers and influence public policy, it ought to be race-neutral or its racial aim should be more subtle.
I can’t help but wonder if some people may have overlooked this portion of La Shawn’s post. Maybe in some specific instances, an organization that has a race-specific title or name is appropriate. But I don’t think it suffices in this case.
Also, I understand that it may be somewhat tough for a person who has become used to being (or feeling) excluded in most circumstances to move away from a mindset of exclusivity. I believe that this contributes somewhat to the reason why so many of these groups continue to be formed.
Comment by Tami — 07.28.06 @ 10:54 am
Oops, my point above is redundant. I just realized that you beat me to it in Comment #7, La Shawn!
I think I was still editing when you commented, Tami. When talking about this stuff, you can never be too redundant.
- Admin
Comment by Tami — 07.28.06 @ 10:58 am
I agree with your basic point, LaShawn; I am wondering, though, whether there’s a sense (among blacks) that illegal immigrants take jobs disproportionately from blacks as opposed to whites or Asians. If that were the case, I could better understand the inclusion of race in the group title. You’re probably better equipped to answer that than I.
Comment by FzxGkJssFrk — 07.28.06 @ 11:25 am
Does this group fit the category?
http://irishgop.com/
Comment by Shade — 07.28.06 @ 11:31 am
OK La Shawn is Right. Race Exclusive Titles are Wrong.
See the details in her post at her blog via this link.
I’ve mentioned the group Choose Black America in this past post, where I was focusing my attention on some nonsense said by former President Jimmy Carter. What I did not note and I’m…
Trackback by Independent Conservative — 07.28.06 @ 11:59 am
I think making the name exclusive to any group (e.g. “Mothers against drunk drivers”) limits your appeal to include others who might have similar concerns. You might do this because the group has something unique about it relevant to the subject (”Alcoholics anonymous”), to establish authority (”Concerned scientists”) or because you are truly being exclusive in your membership (”Veterans of Foreign Wars”).
A good test of a name is to do a negative image of it (Choose white America, Drunks against mad mothers, Teetotalers anonymous, Concerned janitors, Draft dodgers of foreign wars). If you would find the inverse image offensive or comical, chances are you would offend or be the butt of jokes to others.
When your name excludes others, you have more trouble fitting under a big tent, gathering people to your own tent and not being dismissed as “well that doesn’t apply to me”.
All that being said, for a variety of reasons, Blacks in the US tend to have a greater portion of their population needing to get on the economic ladder via an entry level job (as opposed to starting your economic life coming out of college). Illegal immigration is more likely to create competition for those entry level, low skill jobs (just as legal immigration is more likely to create competition for those college fresh outs).
But just because a group has a higher proportion than other groups does not usually mean that they make up 100% of the impacted people. In this case, the impact is based on educational attainment, economic resources and social/job skills. So I would think a better name would be “Choose working Americans”.
On the other hand, take the illegal immigration situation as it stands now. You are an employer. There are sanctions on the books, but you probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than having any major legal pain come down on you. You have the opportunity to hire two people who are willing to work for the same wage, equally capable and will work equally hard. One is an illegal immigrant (with that lottery level risk) and the other is a US citizen. Which would you hire? I suspect that the english speaking US citizen would be preferred.
So if some low skill US citizen worker isn’t getting hired, perhaps the issue lies in being seen as willing to work for the same wage, equally capable and/or willing to work as hard. Whether the perception is based on reality or fiction, then the solution is with the individual to be willing to work twice as hard to prove themselves.
I have a friend who’s father went looking for work during the depression. All the plants in the area had “Not hiring” signs. He went to one of the shop floors and was told by the shop foreman that they weren’t hiring. He then asked if he could use the broom to sweep the shop floor. He proceeded to do a bang up job sweeping the floors (unpaid) for a week. When he showed up the following Monday, the shop foreman put him to work because he saw that he was a hard worker.
If someone was looking at a job site (at least in a right to work state) and wanted to get a job there, a similar tactic would likely work. Walk up, ask for a job. If you get one, work twice as hard as everyone else to show you are serious. If they aren’t hiring, ask if you can pick up trash and work as an unpaid gofer. I bet after working hard for a week if that site doesn’t hire you, someone will refer you to s job site that will. If you have a market distortion in place that only union workers can work, thats a different issue.
Comment by yetanotherjohn — 07.28.06 @ 12:02 pm
Choose Black America chose to take the issue head on, parsing no words about where they stand and who they are. In my opinion, congress pays special attention to minority groups and will give some special attention to this group as well, but not as much attention as they will give to the statement of the NAACP which is undoubtedly a much more powerful organization.
http://www.naacp.org/news/2006/2006-03-31.html
The NAACP has practically endorsed amnesty. If Choose Black America wishes to be heard at all, I don’t think they have any choice but to racially label themselves. I hope they can make an impact, but I fear they are too small and too new of an organization to carry the day.
Of course this is an issue that affects all American citizens, and if the Senate bill becomes law, it will disproportionately hurt all Americans, regardless of race, who labor in unskilled or semi-skilled fields. It already has. I say use whatever you got to get the message out to our “lawmakers” that they are supposed to represent we the people, their CURRENT citizens. They have forsaken us in favor of what they see as their voters 10 years down the road and I, for one, am one white woman who is damn sick of it.
Comment by dianne — 07.28.06 @ 12:06 pm
I frankly don’t think there is anything wrong with this group wrapping their organization’s title around the fact they are black. Where they’ll have a bigger problem is getting people to understand their primary objective. With a name like Choose Black America blacks will automatically think they want us to buy black or concentrate our efforts on building up black communities, etc. They would go much further if they had simply named their group, BAII, for example. (Blacks Against Illegal Immigration).
Comment by Jennifer James — 07.28.06 @ 12:20 pm
While it may be legal, La Shawn I hope you never open a “Blacks Only” Country Club
.
Everything I say that I feel is “wrong” I don’t necessarily feel should be outlawed
.
I think race exclusive clubs are legal and should remain legal, but I can’t say I feel they are a good thing.
I don’t mind the title “Black” when speaking about cultural matter like music. There certainly is music that is culturally “Black”. But using the title “Black” to say things like “pick my group of workers because we are Black” I feel is wrong. Legal, but wrong in my personal view of things.
I guess if a group was formed call “Blacks against Black thugs” I might be OK with that
. But why not simply call it “Blacks against thugs”? OK, now I think the later is better and the former is wrong 
.
See this is why I have to remain Independent
.
Independent Forever!
- Admin
Comment by Independent Conservative — 07.28.06 @ 12:25 pm
If “Choose Black America” was simply named “Choose America”, they would get money and other support from a much larger base. Which would help their cause more. I think they’ve limited the amount of attention they will get by using a race-based title.
If Chris Simcox was running a group called “Whites Guarding the Border” he’d probably be running a much smaller group. And we Blacks who blog probably would not say as much about them. The group uses a patriotic non-race based name like the Minutemen and we all like it and feel like we are also part of their movement.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 07.28.06 @ 12:31 pm
OK, sorry to take up 3 post, but now I no longer like the name “Blacks against thugs†given my statements in comment #17.
I think a name like “I Hate Thugs” would be better
. Anyone can join this group by saying the group’s pledge: “I hate thugs”. And do whatever you can to rid our nation of thuggism.
Now you know I don’t mind zealous commenters! - Admin
Comment by Independent Conservative — 07.28.06 @ 12:41 pm
“But if we conservatives continue forming “black†groups, how can we rail against liberals who do? ”
I agree with you, La Shawn, but I’m not of the white race nor am I a black conservative. (I’m black and a registered democrat who has voted for a republican candidate at least once) So I’m not sure if my comments count but I’ll make them anyway.
Comment by Leon — 07.28.06 @ 1:10 pm
I tend to agree that the need for identifying the group as “Black” is so they will get the attention of the lawmakers,who think Black = NAACP. I also think that illegal immigrants do have a negative impact on the lowest levels of workers.
Several years ago my local paper did a series of articles on the changing face of some traditionally Black neighborhoods. Latinos were moving in and many Blacks felt that the neighborhoods were losing their identity and they felt threatened. I thought then, and still do, when European-Americans felt the same way about their traditional ethnic neighborhoods, they were considered racists. However, these Blacks were merely trying to “preserve their traditions.” I am concerned that “Choose Black America” could be seen as a wedge between Black and Latinos, one that could be exploited for the benefit of a third party.
Comment by March Hare — 07.28.06 @ 1:11 pm
I like Ted Hayes and just about everything he does. I think if the Republican Party did a more effective job of selling the benefits of its agenda to blackfolks, it would make his organization redundant. But it is not redundant and everybody knows that until the GOP works better across racial lines, then people like myself, LaShawn and Ted are going to be in business, as blacks.
We rail against liberals who form black groups because they are wrong, not because they want to get the specific attention and support of blackfolks.
It’s marketing. Plain and simple.
Comment by Cobb — 07.28.06 @ 3:13 pm
Great comments, LaShawn. You’re right on this issue.
I greatly appreciate your blog.
Comment by A. B. Caneday — 07.28.06 @ 3:38 pm
Mr. Hayes and his group are welcome to the party. Maybe their presence in the fray, coupled with the name of their group, will give the liberals pause to think! After all, they have always counted on the kindness of minorities!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 07.28.06 @ 4:53 pm
Yeah, LaShawn. I think we are in agreement. Once wrote a Haiku dealing with this:
Hyphen-Nation
I reject the term
African-American
Hyphens Un-equate
Regards
Buck
Comment by Bucktowndusty — 07.28.06 @ 5:53 pm
As the founder and president of a group with a race designation in its name, let me say that we always announce that our group is open to everyone. The designation is an acknowledgement that there is a black community in virtually EVERY city in the U.S. It has been that way and will continue to be that way. There are particular environmental problems in the black community that we concentrate on because segregated white environmental groups do not go to the black community and do not recognize the black community. We also say that “The African American community is as American as apple pie.” As such, we love our name and it is not racist in any way. We also do not limit ourselves to unique black environmental issues, but address many environmental issues. Imagine an Italian restaurant or a Chines restaurant trying to advertise their specialty without using a racial or ethnic designation. And people celebrate going to these places. We want people in general to feel good about seeing ‘African American’ in any description, except for some spiritually diseaaed racist context.
Comment by Norris McDonald — 07.28.06 @ 6:53 pm
Seems to me that while I’m not big on race-based groups in topics that don’t have anything to do with race, I think there’s a large portion of the black population that has a more deeply vested and differing interest from whites in stemming the tide of immigration. I don’t have any statistics but I’m betting that illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that were in many cases the domain of the black, low income folks. Now that mexicans are doing it cheaper, that puts more of a strain on the black community. Take New Orleans for example. Since the rebuilding began there has been a massive flow of illegals (and legal) to N.O. doing the rebuilding work cheaper than anyone else can afford to. Now this is (to a point) preventing the jobs from being taken by blacks who would ask for more money. This isn’t every case (there are obviously those who will not work as long as they are supported buy the gov.) but it would help.
Comment by John — 07.28.06 @ 6:54 pm
I’m in agreement with Cobb. That means he’ll reassess what he said and LaShawn will know she is correct.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.28.06 @ 9:27 pm
OH, except for “Black liberal groups” being wrong.
Here is the counter-example. A Black church, headed by a pastor who people claim is liberal, heading up an effort to grow the men’s ministry.
Nah… To abstract.
Try this link to Empowerment Temple. It’s headed by Jamal Bryant, who is labeled a liberal.
Comment by DarkStar — 07.28.06 @ 9:35 pm
Join the oldest civil-rights organization in America; the N.R.A.
Comment by Tom Bosee — 07.29.06 @ 10:03 am
I agree with Shade again. I’m not Irish-American; I’m just American. Less trouble that way.
“…but we DON’T WANT THE IRISH!” –from Blazing Saddles
Comment by RedBeard — 07.29.06 @ 10:28 am
Sorry
I believe one of Ted Hayes gripes is that he can’t find a job because Illegals are taking them.
NOT SO. Post Katrina New Orleans is full of Mexicans because Americans are too lazy.
In Shreveport, and Austin, people just can’t find someone to do landscape work. Farm labor in CA is in short supply because construction work pays more.
Illegals are getting $ 8/hr in Texas and $ 12/hr in CA. Ted Hayes can do the same or better.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 07.29.06 @ 10:49 am
Well, if I formed a group named Choose Alsatian America, I’d probably be the only member.
Okay, not really. We were finally recognized as an ethnic group in the 2000 census, which was the first time a category for Alsatian was listed. I was so elated when I checked that box, instead of the nondescriptive “White/Caucasian,” I actually threw a party, opened a bottle of champagne and declared, “I’m now officially a minority!”
I think the larger problem with racial categories on the census, surveys, polls, applications, is that there never is a category for “human.” Whenever I used to fill out these forms, every time I got to the portion that said “Race,” I checked the box that said “Other” and wrote in “human” on the space provided. Then whoever took the form would scratch that out and check “White/Caucasian.” I always took offense to that, but now that I can check “Alsatian” I guess I can’t complain anymore.
But seriously I believe that identity politics is a very real problem in this country. It only serves to further separate us into competing groups and does nothing to unite us into a people with common interests. And I don’t see any end to it.
Comment by GawainsGhost — 07.29.06 @ 11:10 am
Groucho Marx was turned down for membership in a country club because he was Jewish. When he became a huge star, the club courted him for membership. He wrote to them and said: “I would not want to belong to any organization that would accept the likes of me for membership.”
It seems to me that Choose Black America is choosing to paint itself into a corner; and they are raising the middle finger of race as a tired old ploy. Do I hear Choose Mexican America, Choose Native American America, Choose Handicapped America, Choose Gun Owning America, Choose Scientology America, Choose Former Farmers of America, Choose Under-appreciated America, etc. whistling down the tracks?
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.29.06 @ 11:21 am
“During integration, plenty of whites felt the “identity†of their neighborhoods was changing. Blacks in certain cities overrun by “Latinos†and affluent white liberals (â€gentrificationâ€) are expressing similar concerns. This race stuff is a mess, isn’t it?”
Well, I feel the same way about Yankees and Californians (riding the crest of the real estate boom here in Texas) moving into my neighborhood and trying to change everything instead of assimilating. It’s not always about color. Sometimes it’s about disrepect for the people who originally built the neighborhood.
I’d say human nature is at work here.
Comment by Sue Bob — 07.29.06 @ 11:29 am
#31 says: “NOT SO. Post Katrina New Orleans is full of Mexicans because Americans are too lazy.”
Not all Americans are lazy. My cousin owns a successful construction company in New Orleans. His employees are of diverse cultures, but mostly black like him. He also said that he lost some employees because they lost their housing to Katrina and were unable to find suitable housing in New Orleans but found jobs and housing in other cities. Others returned because they were willing to stay in poor housing temporarily while working in New Orleans.
He told me that he had post-Katrina contracts but it was a struggle to get them because you “had to be connected.” He said that the big contracts and govt. money went to a few companies like Haliburton and they in turn subcontracted the work to local companies like his and it was pretty much a “who you know” game.
The bottom line: He never mentioned race or nationality as a factor either in getting contracts or retaining hard working employees.
Comment by Leon — 07.29.06 @ 2:11 pm
Lashawn, why the scare quotes around “imigration” in the original post? It’s not like anyone disagrees about the meaning of the word.
Comment by Richard R — 07.29.06 @ 2:46 pm
“This race stuff is a mess, isn’t it?”
Yep. Marry & have children with someone of another race. Enhance genetic diversity in your gene pool. Besides, multi-racials make the prettiest babies.
Comment by Anymouse — 07.29.06 @ 3:40 pm
Heliotrope: I thought that was Mark Twain, who said, he didn’t want to be a part of any club that would have him as a member.
I think Twain said it first, and then Groucho quoted him.
But, I could be wrong.
Comment by Glamchild — 07.29.06 @ 3:41 pm
Leon:
I have to apologize for the word “lazy” because it does NOT apply.
Your cousin is living proof that those Blacks complaining that Mexicans are “stealing their jobs”are just full of hot air.
And - Yes - many hard working people did not return for jobs going begging because there simply was not enough housing. And, unfortunately, the media stereotyped New Orleans residents by grandstand over women with children who refused to attend job fairs and leave hotels.
And the REAL NEW ORLEANS is made up of people like your cousin and his workers, not the “evacuees” who were the darlings of the media.
Thanks again for the correction.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 07.29.06 @ 4:03 pm
#38 Glamchild: You may well be right. The letter Groucho wrote to the club is in his book The Groucho Letters. If he stole the line from Twain, he could not have chosen a better source. It would only prove Twain’s impeccable wit and Groucho’s keen eye for boosting the jewel while ignoring the paste!
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.29.06 @ 8:35 pm
First, I want to say how much I appreciate this blog and the insights I find here.
The argument for government to favor blacks is based on a recognition that they’re “behind” and the public interest in eliminating the gaps.
The problem is that the commonly prescribed program is affirmative action, which only helps a few individuals at the margins, and is probably counter-productive. At the same time, an entire generation of kids are given a substandard education while the Democrats put the interests of the teachers’ unions first.
Comment by Steve O — 07.29.06 @ 10:49 pm
With all due respect, why shouldn’t blacks have their own group that is against illegal immigration in America? Let me give you some facts here:
The average lower and middle class American family sees their wages depressed by over 7 percent as a result of ILLEGAL ALIENS in our work force. That figures LEAPS to over nine percent for black/African American families. Black young men (16-25) are hardest hit by illegal aliens in the work force with wage loss of over 13 percent. In short, blacks are being hit harder by illegal aliens in the work force than the average family, and they need to plug into the debate, and in a BIG WAY.
Illegal Aliens are KILLING the lower and middle class workers of America, they depress our collective wages by over 200 BILLION dollars each and every year, but sadly well meaning pope on a rope sick twisted Catholics seem bent on breaking our laws by aiding and abetting illegals in staying in America, and now people like you want to tell the black community they cannot have their own voice in this….what the FREAK DO YOU THINK LA RAZA is doing? The organizations name itself means THE RACE, as in CHOSEN.
Porgie Tirebiter
http://porgietirebiter.bravejournal.com/
Comment by Porgie Tirebiter — 07.30.06 @ 1:36 am
Porgie, we’re on the same side here. Why do we need separate teams to fight for a common cause?
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.06 @ 10:08 am
# 42 Porgie warns: Black young men (16-25) are hardest hit by illegal aliens in the work force with wage loss of over 13 percent.
How about a compromise? Let everyone band together to confront the problem of illegal aliens as Americans without resorting to divided self interests. Then, lets set forth a strong black effort to confront the problems among black young men (16-25) which make them subject to unemployment in the low skill job market.
My concern is that focusing on the situation that raises competition for low skilled jobs ignores the many critical problems of too many young black men. Both issues are important, but it would appear that Choose Black America has its priorities mixed up.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.30.06 @ 1:40 pm
I guess my blog would be considered racist too then “Wake Up Black America”. My blog was created to help blacks see how the black community has suffered under liberal ideology. I believe most black conservative groups like Project 21, African American Republicans Leadership Council, Republicans for Black Empowerment, and even Choose Black America aren’t the self segregationist groups like a lot of the black radical liberal groups. The vast majority of black conservative groups and organizations believe in integration in American society unlike black liberal groups. This is really much to do about nothing really. In other words, there isn’t no black conservative separatist movement happening with any of these groups.
Comment by Tyrone — 07.30.06 @ 3:21 pm
It’s funny how when a group of black people do something wrong, they are very much distinguished as black by posters here, yet when a group does something good, we should all “be on the same team”.
Comment by Shade — 07.30.06 @ 3:26 pm
Whenever I used to fill out these forms, every time I got to the portion that said “Race,†I checked the box that said “Other†and wrote in “human†on the space provided. Then whoever took the form would scratch that out and check “White/Caucasian.â€
There’s a form I have to fill out every year for my son’s school — I have a choice of “White/Caucasian”, “Asian”, “Black”, and “Hispanic”. I cross them all out and write “BI-RACIAL”. Once they sent the form back because I forgot to sign it, and someone had crossed out my “BI-RACIAL” and checked the “Black” box. I raised holy stinking hell about it. My son, my rules. It’s not the job of the government to determine what/who we are — what if he was half Chinese and half Latino? What about that equals “Black”?
But you know what they say about the word ‘assume’ and the people who use it…
Comment by Carol — 07.30.06 @ 5:31 pm
While this group’s chosen handle could be considered “racist” at first sight, in the context of the times I believe it is actually desirable. The Liberal Elite, in their always-obvious fearful pandering to Leftist non-white special interest groups like MeCha, constantly leap to the task of presenting anyone who opposes open borders as semi-literate KKK members, deranged paranoics, etc.- similar to their efforts to kiss up to Islamofascists by depicting patriotic Americans and members of the U.S. military in the the same light. Groups like this are needed as in-your-face counterattacks to the Liberals’ constant stereotyping.
Comment by Jim Robertson — 07.30.06 @ 5:56 pm
Heliotrope: “Twain’s impeccable wit”.
Funny that we are talking about Mark Twain…..a writer some people have called “racist” for using the N-Word in Huckleberry Finn!
Can you imagine the heaps of scorn, and cries of racism Twain would encounter today?
Comment by Glamchild — 07.30.06 @ 6:52 pm
Shade, I’m missing the point of your most recent post. We should always be on the same team.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.06 @ 8:04 pm
#49 Glamchild: The honest and sensitive character of Jim as measured by the maturing soul of Huck was Twain’s gift to literature forever and the society of his time in particular. (You may recall that Harriet Beecher Stowe was his adjoining neighbor in Hartford. They shared much in common concerning the nature of man.)
It was the the stink raised in the Philadelphia schools in the 1970’s that got Huckleberry Finn banned, tarred and feathered. It was a useless exercise to try to reason with those who could not look beyond a word and discover the humanity of the context.
I have always looked upon the death of Huck Finn as the birth of the Political Correctness Crusade and the subsequent stupid sound bite wars between talking heads.
Twain did America a great favor in his picaresque novel of navigating the shoals of life’s stream. Then the fools took over and wrecked the raft and who will ever know what happened to the great noble character of the piece: Jim? The attackers had other fish to fry and Jim was not a part of their plan. What a tragic mistake and loss for all of us.
Comment by Heliotrope — 07.31.06 @ 11:14 am
Excellent post, Helio.
What has always intrigued me about the Huckleberry Finn banning is the dual nature of the banning effort. Some people wanted the book bannished because they were, frankly, too uninformed to understand Twain’s meaning. But those who were clearly well informed, yet still wanted the book banned, are beyond my understanding.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.31.06 @ 11:52 am
#42, with all respect, I don’t think anyone here is say that blacks shouldn’t have their own anti-immigration group. Doubting the greater sense of racial lobbies does not equate to condemning or denying their right to exist.
Comment by JohnD — 07.31.06 @ 2:50 pm
But that’s the problem John, why can’t a black anti-illegal immigrant group be just that? Why does it have to signify ‘everything’ that’s wrong with racially identified groups? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Comment by Cobb — 07.31.06 @ 6:36 pm
Is it a black cigar or a white cigar?
What would the general opinion be if an anti-illegal immigration group were formed using the name Choose White America?
Comment by RedBeard — 07.31.06 @ 8:26 pm
That’s the question, RedBeard. I’ve yet to read/heard an answer from blacks who advocate/support black-named groups…
Comment by La Shawn — 07.31.06 @ 8:41 pm
LaShawn,
Whites have heard an answer to that for decades, i.e.; whites are considered to have always had everything their way, thus there’s been no point to identifying anything as “white” this or that.
There’s only one guaranteed conclusion to humanity’s racial mess - the “second coming.”
Comment by Dave in AZ — 08.01.06 @ 12:12 am
I don’t think anyone has problems with these:
http://www.euroamerican.org/
http://www.wacan.org/
http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/content/view/93/67/
http://www.aware.revolt.org/
http://tep.uoregon.edu/workshops/teachdiversity/beingwhite/whiteculture.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0814/p2s1-ussc.html
Come on, Shade! This post is NOT about opposition to mere titles or COLLEGE COURSES with the words “white” or “black” or “European” in them. It’s about groups whose purpose is to lobby the government for change in law and public policy who choose skin color-related names. My point was that illegal “immigration” affects all Americans, that it’s not a black/white issue, and a group calling itself “Choose Black America” is being needlessly and unintentionally exclusive. It’s pointless and a bit silly to start posting links to sites or groups that make reference to race. Let’s be adults about this, please, and understand distinctions. - Admin
Comment by Shade — 08.01.06 @ 12:52 am
I can see your point shade. Illegal Immigration is an issue that affects all of us. This is an issue where we’re all affected equally. I believe those who belong to “choose black America do have their hearts in the right place, eventhough their name may be unnerving. I believe a much more suitable name would be “Choose America”. That says it all.
Comment by Tyrone — 08.01.06 @ 1:53 pm
It’s about groups whose purpose is to lobby the government for change in law and public policy
Well, one group separates into area caucuses (I generally view caucuses as sort of lobyists) and BET has been mentioned in the posts (an organization for entertainment and not lobbying). But the point relates to the consistently mentioned swapping of the terms “black†and “white†and not whether race based organizations such as the one discussed should exist. I don’t particularly support the existance of such organizations. What I am showing is that there are and can be white oriented organizations accepted by blacks. The key is to eliminate the deep rooted perceptions of why such organizations would be created.
You state that you’ve “yet to read/heard an answer from blacks who advocate/support black-named groupsâ€, yet you yourself answered the question in an earlier blog regarding “black prideâ€. You gave their argument and declared it to be legitimate, but added that the time has passed for black pride groups. Such supporters differ from you only in that they don’t believe the time has passed for them.
Black people form black oriented organizations because of the perception (whether this perception is right or wrong) that they are necessary; that black people need such organizations. They are not formed out of anti-white feelings. Black people, as well as most white people, don’t feel that white oriented organizations are necessary for whites. Why would whites need specific socio-economic advancement when whites are practically the embodiment of such advancement? If there were no mainstream black organizations, there would not even be consideration for white mainstream organizations. The only reason that such organizations are mentioned is in response to the presence of the numerous black organizations. Thus, the formation of a NAAWP (which actually exists), white caucus, Ivory magazine, Miss White America, United White College Fund, etc. etc. would be done almost entirely out of spite and black people simply are not going to respect an organization created spitefully. So that is one perception.
The other perception is that white organizations are generally white supremacy organizations and that White Nationalism is most often simply a pseudonym for white supremacy. The NAAWP that exists today is a racist organization. They readily refer to blacks by the n-word during speeches and promote white supremacy. Since blacks today commonly suffer from a significant degree of paranoia about racism, such perceptions are easily manifested. The links in my previous post show how white organization can be acceptable to blacks if blacks are convinced that they are not racist and that they have a real purpose beyond spite.
Also, there is another point with regards to switching “white†and “blackâ€. The term “black†does not denote racial purity. It denotes anyone of black African descent. Thus, Halle Berry would be accepted in any and all exclusively black organizations despite being biracial. Yet, she would not be accepted in an exclusively white organization. Furthermore, the term “black†as used the vast majority of the time in America denotes a specific, homogeneous ethnic group. It generally doesn’t include those who are Afro-Caribbean, Africans, Afro-Brazilians, etc. The term “black†is synonymous with the term African American which refers mostly to black descendents of slaves in the U.S. When Americans say “black culture†they are referring to black American culture/subculture.
“White†on the other hand, includes numerous ethnicities such as Italians, Germans, Irish, ethnic Jews, Scandinavians, etc. right here in America. These groups have numerous ethnic based organizations and I think that they are more comparable to black organizations than the general term “whiteâ€. All can be viewed as minority groups.
Comment by Shade — 08.01.06 @ 4:02 pm
Shade, that’s all just way too complicated for me. That’s my trouble; I’m too lazy to want to do anything that’s more complicated than necessary. Trying to sort out whether I belong in the Irish-American pigeonhole, the Scottish-American one, the Alsatian-American one, the Hoosier one…. it’s just too hard.
How about you just call me RedBeard and I’ll just call you Shade? Forget all the extraneous junk. Then we can work together to solve important stuff like the Big Bang Theory, how they made Wesley Snipes look so big in Blade, or the mystery of why on earth Paris Hilton is famous.
Comment by RedBeard — 08.01.06 @ 4:38 pm
“Liberal whites are scared sh#tless over race…”
Want to know why? Because we have been told over and over that only we can be racist. I think it is a crock, but what can I say. It is what it is and a lot of us labeled as “white” are tired of the whole thing.
I think that if the body politic can be kept talking about divisive things like race, we will never know that we are being sold down the river to the latest bunch of thieves. There is the war between the sexes, racial relations, etc….
Good luck….
Comment by Robohobo — 08.02.06 @ 1:45 am
Robohobo
Are you saying that you are a liberal white person? Because liberal whites actively participate in promoting the idea that only whites can be racist.
Comment by Shade — 08.02.06 @ 11:31 am
“Because liberal whites actively participate in promoting the idea that only whites can be racist.”
Yeah? But would that be the same kind of ‘true’ statement as me saying: ‘conservatives whites actively hate minorities’.
Are you talking about the Seattle School thang? Or those of us ‘whites’ who don’t support White Supremacists?
Oh wait, someone said recently that only one kind of person generalizes, and that’s a liberal. Errr….
Comment by JohnD — 08.02.06 @ 3:06 pm
Speaking of the sensitive and caring liberals and their contribution to racial harmony and understanding, check out the latest blackface incident.
Michelle Malkin is covering this as it plays out at the Huffington Post. This ranks right down there in the gutter with the obscene leftist cartoon caricatures of Dr. Rice and the “house slave” slander Belafonte directed at Gen. Powell.
I’m puzzled as to why anyone considers the left to be the proper home for minorities.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
Comment by RedBeard — 08.02.06 @ 4:53 pm
#65.
I’ll take your example of a bigoted liberal and raise you another example of a bigoted conservative….etc
Is there really any point in trying to ‘prove’ that only the ‘other side’ are racist/lying/bigoted/mean/witless/sanctimonous ad infinatum? That does so seem to be the way that political discourse heads.
I’m not speaking in defence of ‘liberals’ either, just of individuals, common-sense, whatever.
Comment by JohnD — 08.07.06 @ 4:19 am
I happen upon your site a few months age and have
been reading it - have to make comment now.
I’ve been called racist because I tried to keep
my dog from biting a person (Black) that happened
to be walking by and wanted to pet the dog; who
does not like anyone touch him. I pulled the dog
aside and told her “he will bite” she said I was
racist because I would not let her pet the dog.
My answer to her was “I don’t want my dog to bite
you and you call me a racist; if my dog did bite
you what would I be then.” “If racist is the
first thing that pops into your brain because I
don’t want my dog to bite you, then maybe your
the racist?”
These words(racist, prejudice, etc) are used to
explain things away that we have no other answer
for or do we just use them because media and
government has brainwashed all of us to use these
words when we don’t like something that happens
between different cultures that upsets us.
Instead of looking at the real problem and fixing
that so it does not happen again.
There are good people and there are bad people
in every race most just want to live a life.
I was raised that an American is a American no
matter what ancestors you came from because in
the end we all end up in the same place anyways.
To use the words “Black” “Hispanic” “White” in an
organizations title to me means you are just out
to help that group of people and to real change
how we look at things here in America we should be organizing to help all Americans not just a
group of certain people.
Hope everyone can understand what I mean; I’m not
to good at writing down my thoughts.
Anyway I enjoy reading all the comments and told
others to check this site out because of its
openness. Thanks.
Comment by usaave — 08.11.06 @ 2:43 pm