lolarobot

Well, we have the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People and La Raza meaning "the race" which is a group to advance the rights of Hispanics, so would there be a problem if I started the NAAWP, the National Association for the Advancement of White People? In Texas, White people are the minority and should probably organize to ensure that we are protected and not discriminated against. Maybe even special grants and loans for White people.

What are everyone's thoughts?

http://www.nclr.org/
http://www.naacp.org/

40sondacurb

Sounds as necessary as a national association for the advancement of men

lolarobot

Well, I take it you are joking, but if not, I believe it is absolutely necessary for groups to be formed to support the efforts of certain groups or to ensure equality. Many men are now learning that the child they "thought" was theirs, is not due, to DNA tests, but courts say they are still responsible for this child. That is incredibly unfair. Also, courts in general favor the woman, regardless, so many good fathers get the major shaft when it comes to visitation, child support payments, etc. There is an imbalance, you must agree.

Also, why, if I am not a minority, be able to form a group for the protection of White people or the advancement. I mean we are the minority...why not? Do you have a reason?

Thanks!

Drew1369

You can't... its racist

Canaanabolaanan

Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with your idea, and also liken it to the "men" analogy, which I find comical and unnecessary. These minority agencies are there to protect the minorities from undue discrimination. White people in America are the rule, not the exception. Although the scales are definitely starting to tip.

...I suppose if you find yourself in an area where whites are the minority, you could probably experience discrimination, perhaps from Latino bosses who seek to hire other latinos for no other qualified reason than they're more latino than you.

So, perhaps you're okay to do so. But I'd use extreme caution in presenting an idea like this, and how you carry through with it, if that is your true intent. My first impression is that it's exceedingly tacky and insulting. So you have to be very careful how to present your case, and make sure you use the utmost respect, tact, and class in establishing and using it.

I don't know about the grants/loans though. That sounds discriminatory too, unless you can show where this offsets an otherwise lopsided distribution against whites. I would only use it to prevent injustices, fighting cases like the one I mentioned previously. Unless you can provide a strong case for the grants.

Drew1369

I believe it was a hypothetical question talking about the racism that these groups present to many people

EnglishPaul

I think you have to look at the motivation of a group. Ethnic development groups tend to seek recognition. White work groups tend to seek domination.
As a white person, do you need recognition in Texas? (And yes I do realise that Mr Bush has put your people back decades.)

lolarobot

Is it not interesting that as a minority, I, as a White person, must use "extreme" precaution, but Blacks and Mexicans protest w/out any caution and some (actually most) are here illegally (Hispanics). La Raza fills the streets, burns the American flag and Blacks get all types of special bank loans and illegals get refund checks from a govt. into which they have paid nothing. But, by all means, please tax me more, but disallow me to from forming a group to help protect me. I guess with White skin, no matter what I do to support myself, I am a giant racist, even though I am the minority. So, how is this fair?

kinbard

I think all these groups need to be shut down. Though they do have benefits, they no longer fulfill their intended purposes, and only remain to renforce the racist mentality. We will never move past racism as long as someone is screaming "thats racist! Thats racist!" But, if the groups remain, then why shouldn't whites have one now? Granted, 20 or more years ago, it would have been tacky. But in 2009? I personally would never join any type of group, but to be fair, yes I say they have to right to have one just as everyone else.

lolarobot

I have this thought, that I don't really share with anyone, so please be aware that this is one of those "little" voices in my head, and this thought may be controversial, but in some ways, I am glad I am a woman...because, I feel that the White "man" is really the target of reverse discrimination, etc. etc. etc. Women are still considered a group that is oppressed, not paid equally, etc. So, I might reap "some" of the benefits of this new administration. Deep down, my thought is this... the minority groups think that the White man has had the upper hand in pretty much everything from job opportunities, education opportunities, etc. etc., and now it is THEIR turn and if that means taxing those who have any money left to pay for their advancement, then so be it. Is it unfair, yes, but they think the discrimination they have experienced was equally unfair.

Here is the question... If given all of the opportunities available, will they be able to succeed, or will the White man still prevail, even if a minority?

kinbard

Yup, but no one would really ever believe that. Being a white man is taboo. The line I like from Good Will Hunting is "you like apples? You like apples? How about them apples?" Classic play on words.

SABL

The NAAWP has been around for many years.....aka the KKK.

Any organisation that is focused on skin color should be abolished. NAAP would be fine with me....let's advance people in general regardless of color.

Don't flaunt your color and 'minority' status..... I will not be impressed.

simpswr

I think there should be a NAFPWAAGAM . . . National Association for People who are goofy as me!!!

EnglishPaul

It might prove to be very small.

lolarobot

Then, I will let you be the one to call La Raza and the NAACP and tell them they are full of rubbish. Let's see how well that goes over. Easy to say there should be no "group" when you are a White man. Sorry, just speaking the truth.

SABL

When making an observation of a person, and making any assesment solely on color without attempting to see the real person, two people have been cut short.

Yes, I am white... I am male. What I will emphasize is that I am also "common". What is the point?? There is no discrimination against me and I have no gripe??

Check the civil service sector for police or firefighter (public safety) in reference to the "exam" or test and let me know where I stand.

Who do I turn to when I am told that the position I applied for has met the quota for WM's and minorities only need to apply??

Lola.... I take no offense and see where you are coming from. Being a WM seems to have advantages. That may have been true at one time but times have changed.

lolarobot

I belong to a voice chat room on skype and I am constantly hearing white men complain about discrimination, and yes, this is unfair... I ask them just one question.."Would you prefer to be black to receive all of these so-called benefits?" I always get silence. The answer though is "no." So, even though there is a slight discrimination, no white person would ever change their color for another.

And you comment about people over-looking color to the real person... well, I hate the break the news to you, but does not happen, has not happened and perhaps never will happen, but in a perfect world, I agree with you, but as humans we are judged on our looks, our gender and our color, period. I have been discriminated against my whole life for being a woman, hence groups to support women who are discriminated against by.... uh, white men.. sorry. So, I understand these groups, but it always seems to make someone mad and the scales tipped in someone's favor... someone is going to be pissed off, period. But, as a woman, I say, well, you should have never discriminated against me in the first place and you would never be in this unbalanced situation to begin with. Payback is heck.

Fren Banklin

I always wonder about certain kinds of people. The people that "stand up" for "their" rights. The "oppressed" people, the "downtrodden", etc...

I always wonder why.

I've met some of these people IRL, and every single one of them can't be described with any other word other than "failure". Failed to succeed in life, failed even to hang on to the dream of success, and instead have supplanted what ought to be their dream and goal of self-success with the dream of someone else's success.

Why this is, is crtitical. Because these people are a social sickness; insidious in the manner in which they present themselves. Simultaneously moral (more moral than YOU) while studiously ignoring the expected track their own lives should have taken, given the superiority of their life philosophy.

I always look at the results, and the fact of the matter is, these people have WAY too many pet animals. Houses covered with feces and urine stained carpets, with guests wearing the strained mask we have to put on when we visit them, because we are too "polite" to tell them simply that they are less than animals, because even animals know better than to defecate where they live.

Somehow, in some twisted way, failing to tell these disfunctional sub-humans that they are in fact sub-human, is somehow "good" and "right" and polite. Which only serves to allow these "people" to continue on in their delusional belief that they are normal.

So, I think it's a good idea to buy-out of that whole dynamic, and start calling things for what they are. People that live in the midst on animal excrement are sub-human, and people that put more energy into the theoretical lives of abstract people rather than apply their efforts at improving their own lives are delusional idiots and complete failures, with no hope of any future "success" other than to infect others with their diseased notions of adequacy.

These "people"; these "Liberals" SOOO concerned with the welfare of "someone else". Yet, talk to these people's immediate friends and family, and your find out how truly disconnectd and disengage these people truly are, from the very people that should mean the most to them. Liberals: Advocating success in other people's lives as a means of redirecting attention away from their own inadequacies.

I have a better idea. I think it's time to go on offense. I think it's time to start looking these liberals straight in the eye, and state clearly that LONG before they are empowered to even HAVE an opinion on how other people should live, perhaps maybe they should clean up all that cat feces off their carpet, because it's filthy, disgusting and smells bad.

And so do they.

yustr

Well said.

lolarobot

Well said? Do you really agree with this? Seems a "tad" extreme. I mean although I do believe some people use their "affiliations" with certain groups as a crutch and an ultimate hindrance to their own success, I believe these groups were formed for a reason, with good intentions, I am sure at the outset. Although, they can get out of control and end up in counterproductive mode, with a negative image ultimately attached to them, I am sure there was a reason. For example, they just had World Woman's Day and oppressed women from around the world to gather and protest against this oppression. In Berlin, ex-Muslim woman were burning their hijabs and burkas. I find these groups necessary to put out a message of, "YOU WILL NOT DO THIS TO US ANYMORE." And, they feel safety in number and the numbers are powerful and are voices of change.

But, really, if I may be honest, it is hard for me to hear an attractive, smart White man whine about groups being formed with those who do not have these same attributes. Let's say for example I was a disabled, Black, lesbian female and I went for the same job as the person who posted his concerns with these groups? Who is going to get the job? Hmmmmm.... let's see... geez, this is a hard one. Really, this is so hard for me to wrap my head around or respect the "opinion" of a privileged person. Walk a mile in the shoes of some of these people and then get back to me. And, although I am a raging conservative Republican, I certainly "understand" the reasons why people form groups and I do not believe they are sub-humans. Do some of them have ulterior motives that are unpure? Perhaps, but overall, I at least understand.

May I make a note that it all depends on the group. La Raza is a violent organization, whereas a group to help the disabled is a legit group. All depends.