Hispanics protest against Detroit Africa Town
Detroit's Latino activists said they were galled by one reference that read: "Even though legal and illegal Hispanics constitute only 3 percent of Detroit's population and 90 percent have been in the country less than 25 years, Hispanics aggressively demand inclusion in local affirmative action programs and in elected positions ... Rather than either distinguishing the situation of blacks and Hispanics, or pointing out that blacks are the majority population and therefore can elect who they wish, local political forces have instead acceded to these demands."
See the Latino, Arab and Asian reaction.
posted by Noah TA @ 9/29/2004 04:36:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
These are the same groups that have benifited from our struggle in America to make the constitution more than just a piece of paper and they are now opposing a plan that will help Black men and women based on the belief they are missing out on something. In a city that is more than 80% Black they should be seeking alliance with Black folk. I am sure these 30 individuals do not represent the whole of their communities but Black folk in Detroit knows now who has their back and who does not.
Do you think the concept of the government excluding benefits to individuals based on race fair ?
Or do you acknowdledge that it is unfair but it is necessary to correct past injustices ?
You create a false binary option, as well as, asking the wrong questions. The question is how do you define fair or unfair? Do you consider leaving blacks with the legacy of relative disadvantage, past on via a history of white racial preferences fair? Do you think that it is “fair” if the government take no active role to lift up black people, when it has taken an active historical role in the oppression of black people? How are you defining fair? Fair is certainly not the condition that exists for blacks today.
Instead of focusing on fairness, how about focusing on creating logical equalities? In mathematics and logic, in order to preserve equality, what ever is done to one side of the operator must be performed on the other, or an inequality will be the resultant. Empirical evidence shows whites had privilege over blacks, thus creating inequality. This privilege was facilitated by laws from governments. Now, to logical restore the equality, what was done for whites need to be allowed done for blacks until such times that equilibrium is restored and the use of government and laws should be allowed to achieve this end of restoring equality. That might not be “fair”, which is a subjective terminology, but it is “logical”.
Noah - I find your thinking on this topic of what is "fair" most odd.
If you think I am incorrect, then tell me. But according to this sort of "you did this, so we must do that" kind of logic, it seems that equity can only be achieved if whites are made into slaves, with blacks the plantation owners.
I'm assuming you do NOT mean this - so, tell me why "equity" then means doing to one group what has been done to the other.
Well, whether or not you make a subjective conclusion of “odd” or use emotional terminology such as “unfair”, what you are leaving outstanding is the question of logic. Most people prefer to deal in the emotional and subjective realm, because nothing can be proven or disproved. However, when people talk starting logically, then one can prove validity and falsity, thus forcing people into a moral dilemma concerning their beliefs and position. What such people usually end up doing is saying that the argument cannot be mapped logically to social phenomenon dealing with humans…that BS of course.
Anyway, to answer your question directly, it would not be feasible to do what you suggest in regards to enslaving whites. I would not promote such a solution anyway, upon moral grounds. It is simply the unfortunate fate of black people that will have the psychological legacy of slavery and white supremacy that will work against our self image and self esteem for well into the future. That result in an inequality for sometime to come. In regards to the physical, there is nothing to gain from doing to whites physically, what was done to blacks physically. That physical pain does not transcend time into the descendants, but rather, it becomes a psychological pain to descendants.
That having been said, it is the discrimination in regards laws and practices that favored a white that has also worked to create a socioeconomic inequality. Whites used this to their favor for centuries, as well as the physical and psychological oppression, to create their advantage that inherits to the present. To deny blacks the use of the same methodology…to promote equality…is tantamount to denying a person under attack the right to use the means of the aggressor to negate the effects of the aggressor.
Faheem,
You focused on a mindset that whites psycho into whenever Blacks appear to be advancing or trying to advance. When you wrote, "In a city that is more than 80% Black they should be seeking alliance with Black folk.", it broght to mind what whites do when Blacks threaten to improve their lot. Take for instance the issue that developed in the Michigan AA program. I recall that there were 1234 whites who were approved for admission and had lower scores than the white plaintiffs who were not admitted. There were about 500 or 700 minorites admitted past the white plaintiffs. But who did the white plaintiffs pursue? They pursued the Blacks. The Hispnics that are now objecting to Africa town seem to be falling into the same type of mindset. Instead of going out on their own and maybe getting their own town built around the same principle, they go after the Blacks. They say nothing about the whites who have created the need to take this type of action. They actually want the same things Blacks want but seem to always be riding on the coattails of Black people. Black people seem to be more capable of forcing whites to comply with the terms of the Constitution.
Comrade
Post a Comment
<< Home