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?
