I wonder if the Chamber sponsors a European businessman's lunch, caucasians only.
Business At Lunch
Free quarterly event available to Hispanic Chamber members only. Limited to first 150 people who sign up. Christpher Baggley will give advice on "Building the On Your Side Experience."
Sponsor: San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Nationwide
Jives wrote: I notice a lot of that. it's OK to have a "Black American" club at school, or even an "Hispanic' club. But don't you dare have a "Caucasian Club.":-2
You could have saya "German Club" for your students with a German Background, or a "French Background Club."
The problem is "caucasion" is too broad. Make it specifically ethnic and you'd probably get away with it.
"Hispanic" isn't even a true ethnicity. It's a category we made up because we couldn't be bothered with the myriad cultures of the Central & South American countries, not to mention Puerto Rico. Hell, a lot of people think Philipinos are hispanic.
But if there wasn't some big money behind some of the things that transpire, nothing would happen. Some folks think that this recent Hispanic activity is part of the NWO doing what they do best. CONTROL. They want America on its knees.
Check out the Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion for the plan.
Might I revive this discussion to ask why it is we have BLack Entertainment Awards and Hispanic Music Awards and so on...when these folks are well represented in the Oscars and Grammys? Do you suppose Oprah would have an enormously expensive and advertised special event for the "50 NOTABLE WHITE WOMEN?"
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
By golly, I hadn't even CONSIDERED animated characters! Where're the awards for GREEN PEOPLE? The Giant? Shrek? The Witch of the East? The Geico gecko? :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
It's not racist any more than having a "Women: How to Succeed in Business" conference sponsored by the Your Town's Women's Council is sexist.
Do you suppose Oprah would have an enormously expensive and advertised special event for the "50 NOTABLE WHITE WOMEN?"
No I don't. Because Oprah is a black woman and is there to support two things: women in general and black women specifically. Why is this so wrong?
Why can't we all have our special clubs or whatever? Why does that mean we're sexist or racist or "religionist?"I don't especially want men around on Ladies Night Only and they probably don't want me in their YMCA or Businessmen's Club.
I think it's fine to embrace our sameness as long as we don't fail to respect and appreciate our differences. Equal attention to both seems like a healthy and acceptable thing to me.
RedGlitter wrote: It's not racist any more than having a "Women: How to Succeed in Business" conference sponsored by the Your Town's Women's Council is sexist.
Do you suppose Oprah would have an enormously expensive and advertised special event for the "50 NOTABLE WHITE WOMEN?"
No I don't. Because Oprah is a black woman and is there to support two things: women in general and black women specifically. Why is this so wrong?
Why can't we all have our special clubs or whatever? Why does that mean we're sexist or racist or "religionist?"I don't especially want men around on Ladies Night Only and they probably don't want me in their YMCA or Businessmen's Club.
I think it's fine to embrace our sameness as long as we don't fail to respect and appreciate our differences. Equal attention to both seems like a healthy and acceptable thing to me. :)Thanks for putting this in perspective for me. I must've been in a bad mood when I wrote this. I think they were having a function I wanted to go to but couldn't because I'm Latin-free.
RedGlitter wrote: It's not racist any more than having a "Women: How to Succeed in Business" conference sponsored by the Your Town's Women's Council is sexist.
Do you suppose Oprah would have an enormously expensive and advertised special event for the "50 NOTABLE WHITE WOMEN?"
No I don't. Because Oprah is a black woman and is there to support two things: women in general and black women specifically. Why is this so wrong?
The problem with that is that if I were to support white women specifically, I would be labeled a racist. Specifically by Ms. Winfrey.
"My body is the earth but my head is in the stars."
CheshireCat wrote: The problem with that is that if I were to support white women specifically, I would be labeled a racist. Specifically by Ms. Winfrey.[I just got dumped after writing an eloquent post. I'll try to duplicate it]
But if you formed a group supporting your ethnicity within the "Whiteness" (I'm guessing Tabby, based on your avatar :yh_wink) supporting Tabby women, you'd be praised.
AAARRRrrgh!! I'm out of time, but will return to this. :-5
CheshireCat wrote: The problem with that is that if I were to support white women specifically, I would be labeled a racist. Specifically by Ms. Winfrey.
Right CC, that's the problem in a nutshell! Many people that are now wanting to be PC, are accepting "segragated minority" functions/events as OK. And the minorities love it! But by the same token, there better not be a segregated "Caucasions only" function/event, as the caucasions know better. That they would be crucified by those same minorities that wanted their own segragated event! Many of those same minorities want to be in the caucasion functions, or they cry foul/discrimination! If there's a standard for equalitity, then it must apply to all!
Accountable wrote: [I just got dumped after writing an eloquent post. I'll try to duplicate it]
But if you formed a group supporting your ethnicity within the "Whiteness" (I'm guessing Tabby, based on your avatar :yh_wink) supporting Tabby women, you'd be praised.
AAARRRrrgh!! I'm out of time, but will return to this. :-5
You know I must have written a hundred....no a thousand Pulitzer prize winning essays only to get dumped. I hate when that happens !
Here's an issue which illustrates the "it's ok if WE want to do it, but not if YOU want to do it" mentalityl
(From their web page) "The National Association of Black Social Workers has taken a vehement stand against the placement of black children in white homes for any reason. We affirm the inviolable position of black children in black families where they belong physically, psychologically and culturally in order that they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future.
Ethnicity is a way of life in these United States, and the world at large; a viable, sensitive, meaningful and legitimate societal construct. This is no less true nor legitimate for black people than for other ethnic groups. . . .
The socialization process for every child begins at birth and includes his cultural heritage as an important segment of the process. In our society, the developmental needs of Black children are significantly different from those of white children. Black children are taught, from an early age, highly sophisticated coping techniques to deal with racist practices perpetrated by individuals and institutions. These coping techniques become successfully integrated into ego functions and can be incorporated only through the process of developing positive identification with significant black others. Only a black family can transmit the emotional and sensitive subtleties of perception and reaction essential for a black child’s survival in a racist society. Our society is distinctly black or white and characterized by white racism at every level. We repudiate the fallacious and fantasied reasoning of some that whites adopting black children will alter that basic character.
We fully recognize the phenomenon of transracial adoption as an expedient for white folk, not as an altruistic humane concern for black children. The supply of white children for adoption has all but vanished and adoption agencies, having always catered to middle class whites developed an answer to their desire for parenthood by motivating them to consider black children. This has brought about a re-definition of some black children. Those born of black-white alliances are no longer black as decreed by immutable law and social custom for centuries. They are now black-white, inter-racial, bi-racial, emphasizing the whiteness as the adoptable quality; a further subtle, but vicious design to further diminish black and accentuate white. We resent this high-handed arrogance and are insulted by this further assignment of chattel status to black people. . . .
White parents of black children seek out special help with their parenting; help with acquiring the normal and usually instinctual parental behaviors inherent in the cultural and psychological development of children. It is tantamount to having to be taught to do what comes naturally.
Special programming in learning to handle black children’s hair, learning black culture, “trying to become black, puts normal family activities in the form of special family projects to accommodate the odd member of the family. This is accentuated by the white parents who had to prepare their neighbors for their forthcoming black child and those who hasten, even struggle, to make acquaintance with black persons. These actions highlight the unnatural character of trans racial adoption, giving rise to artificial conditions, logically lacking in substance. Superficialities convey nothing of worth and are more damaging than helpful.
We know there are numerous alternatives to the placement of black children with white families and challenge all agencies and organizations to commit themselves to the basic concept of black families for black children. With such commitment all else finds its way to successful realization of that concept. Black families can be found when agencies alter their requirements, methods of approach, definition of suitable family and tackle the legal machinery to facilitate inter-state placements. Additionally, the proposed commitment invokes the social work profession to a re-orientation to the black family permitting sight of the strengths therein. Exploration for resources within a child’s biological family can reveal possibilities for permanent planning. The extended family of grandparents, aunts, cousins, etc. may well be viable resources if agencies will legitimize them; make them their area for initial exploration and work first to develop and cement their potential. This is valid and preferable even if financial assistance is necessary.
We denounce the assertions that blacks will not adopt; we affirm the fact that black people, in large number, can not maneuver the obstacle course of the traditional adoption process. This process has long been a screening out device. The emphasis on high income, educational achievement, residential status and other accoutrements of a white middle class life style eliminates black applicants by the score.
The National Association of Black Social Workers asserts the conviction that children should not remain in foster homes or institutions when adoption can be a reality. We stand firmly, though, on conviction that a white home is not a suitable placement for black children and contend it is totally unnecessary."
+++++++So--in other words--it's better to keep black children in institutionized care than to place them in loving, adoptive homes?
Suppose I married a black man who had sole custody of his small children? And suppose that, after several years, he died, leaving the children in my care? Does this mean they should be taken from me, their loving step-mother, and placed in "black approved institutionized care?"
Obviously, this says that interracial families are harmful to children and that parents of one race cannot ever raise loving children of mixed race or different race.
Guess nobody told that to Tiger Woods or Halle Berry or Mariah Carey or Camille Clark (newest Rose Queen) or Josephine Baker or Nicole Kidman/Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, etc, etc, etc.
What racist bullsh##!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Lulu2 wrote: Here's an issue which illustrates the "it's ok if WE want to do it, but not if YOU want to do it" mentalityl
(From their web page) "The National Association of Black Social Workers has taken a vehement stand against the placement of black children in white homes for any reason. We affirm the inviolable position of black children in black families where they belong physically, psychologically and culturally in order that they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future.
Ethnicity is a way of life in these United States, and the world at large; a viable, sensitive, meaningful and legitimate societal construct. This is no less true nor legitimate for black people than for other ethnic groups. . . .
The socialization process for every child begins at birth and includes his cultural heritage as an important segment of the process. In our society, the developmental needs of Black children are significantly different from those of white children. Black children are taught, from an early age, highly sophisticated coping techniques to deal with racist practices perpetrated by individuals and institutions. These coping techniques become successfully integrated into ego functions and can be incorporated only through the process of developing positive identification with significant black others. Only a black family can transmit the emotional and sensitive subtleties of perception and reaction essential for a black child’s survival in a racist society. Our society is distinctly black or white and characterized by white racism at every level. We repudiate the fallacious and fantasied reasoning of some that whites adopting black children will alter that basic character.
We fully recognize the phenomenon of transracial adoption as an expedient for white folk, not as an altruistic humane concern for black children. The supply of white children for adoption has all but vanished and adoption agencies, having always catered to middle class whites developed an answer to their desire for parenthood by motivating them to consider black children. This has brought about a re-definition of some black children. Those born of black-white alliances are no longer black as decreed by immutable law and social custom for centuries. They are now black-white, inter-racial, bi-racial, emphasizing the whiteness as the adoptable quality; a further subtle, but vicious design to further diminish black and accentuate white. We resent this high-handed arrogance and are insulted by this further assignment of chattel status to black people. . . .
White parents of black children seek out special help with their parenting; help with acquiring the normal and usually instinctual parental behaviors inherent in the cultural and psychological development of children. It is tantamount to having to be taught to do what comes naturally.
Special programming in learning to handle black children’s hair, learning black culture, “trying to become black, puts normal family activities in the form of special family projects to accommodate the odd member of the family. This is accentuated by the white parents who had to prepare their neighbors for their forthcoming black child and those who hasten, even struggle, to make acquaintance with black persons. These actions highlight the unnatural character of trans racial adoption, giving rise to artificial conditions, logically lacking in substance. Superficialities convey nothing of worth and are more damaging than helpful.
We know there are numerous alternatives to the placement of black children with white families and challenge all agencies and organizations to commit themselves to the basic concept of black families for black children. With such commitment all else finds its way to successful realization of that concept. Black families can be found when agencies alter their requirements, methods of approach, definition of suitable family and tackle the legal machinery to facilitate inter-state placements. Additionally, the proposed commitment invokes the social work profession to a re-orientation to the black family permitting sight of the strengths therein. Exploration for resources within a child’s biological family can reveal possibilities for permanent planning. The extended family of grandparents, aunts, cousins, etc. may well be viable resources if agencies will legitimize them; make them their area for initial exploration and work first to develop and cement their potential. This is valid and preferable even if financial assistance is necessary.
We denounce the assertions that blacks will not adopt; we affirm the fact that black people, in large number, can not maneuver the obstacle course of the traditional adoption process. This process has long been a screening out device. The emphasis on high income, educational achievement, residential status and other accoutrements of a white middle class life style eliminates black applicants by the score.
The National Association of Black Social Workers asserts the conviction that children should not remain in foster homes or institutions when adoption can be a reality. We stand firmly, though, on conviction that a white home is not a suitable placement for black children and contend it is totally unnecessary."
+++++++So--in other words--it's better to keep black children in institutionized care than to place them in loving, adoptive homes?
Suppose I married a black man who had sole custody of his small children? And suppose that, after several years, he died, leaving the children in my care? Does this mean they should be taken from me, their loving step-mother, and placed in "black approved institutionized care?"
Obviously, this says that interracial families are harmful to children and that parents of one race cannot ever raise loving children of mixed race or different race.
Guess nobody told that to Tiger Woods or Halle Berry or Mariah Carey or Camille Clark (newest Rose Queen) or Josephine Baker or Nicole Kidman/Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, etc, etc, etc.
What racist bullsh##!
You know some of this makes sense. Culturally we are different. That said I think this is way too analytical. The bottom line is if you can put a family together with love and structure, thats good for everyone.
Culturally, we ARE different (IN SOME WAYS)...no question, although, ideally, we're more alike than not. However, restricting adoptions to same-race people is racist and ridiculous. JMHO (of course.) And if different-race people cannot effectively raise different-race children, why should we "allow" mixed-race couples? Hmmmmmmm?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
I agree. Perhaps the line of thinking there is not blending the races so as not to eventually lose the race. Extreme and probably not possible, not short term anyway. But adopting outside would go a long way towards understanding eachother. That would take a lot of adopting though.
The bottom-line RACIST aspect of it is to ASSUME that people of other races cannot love, nurture and raise children with different racial backgrounds. AND:
"We fully recognize the phenomenon of transracial adoption as an expedient for white folk, not as an altruistic humane concern for black children."
How blatantly biased is THAT? Those mean ol' "white folk"...at it again!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Lulu2 wrote: The bottom-line RACIST aspect of it is to ASSUME that people of other races cannot love, nurture and raise children with different racial backgrounds. AND:
"We fully recognize the phenomenon of transracial adoption as an expedient for white folk, not as an altruistic humane concern for black children."
How blatantly biased is THAT? Those mean ol' "white folk"...at it again!
My parents adopted 2 Korean children, my brother and sister. It was a very positive thing for the children: should they have been left in an orphanage, and my sister had been a foundling left on a doorstep? Is it better to let them die in hunger, or have a family that loves them?
chonsigirl wrote: My parents adopted 2 Korean children, my brother and sister. It was a very positive thing for the children: should they have been left in an orphanage, and my sister had been a foundling left on a doorstep? Is it better to let them die in hunger, or have a family that loves them?
I think that was awesome of your parents Chronsi.
I think when a person is looking to adopt, they are looking for a child to love and raise. Not browsing the market like it's a car lot searching for the right color. :rolleyes:
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
We fully recognize the phenomenon of transracial adoption as an expedient for white folk, not as an altruistic humane concern for black children
This is deeply offensive to me. And that part about their hair- please! I can't believe they said that.
I agree that only a black person can teach another person about being black. The same way only an Irish person can teach someone to be Irish. Or whatever. But only a human can teach another person how to be human. The end.
I am also offended by the bit about interracial children. Am I the only one who has never had a problem with "what race are they?!" They are what they are! They are black and white! Chinese and Polish! Mexican and Greek! Why's that so hard?! Not everyone is going to marry inetrracially and "mess up" the "true" races. So what if some people do marry a different race? There ought to be room for everyone. <=== this goes for religion in my book, too.
And yeah- if a white person had said it, he'd be just another racist cracker. :-5
:-5 There is no race. There is no race. There is no race. There is no race. There is no race.
I'm tired of arguing that there is no race. If you want to categorize humans into some kind of substrata of species based on physical characteristics, knock yourselves out.
But You people kill me that think that skin color and physical characteristics constitute a culture. They don't. Color isn't ethnicity. Race does not equal culture. The words are not synonymous.
A Euro-American, a Scot, and a Greek are all of the same "race" but no one can convince me we're of the same culture. Likewise, an African-American, a black South African, and a Fulani nomad are all of the same "race" but have their own distinctive cultures. Race is coincidental to culture, not causal.
I have had one major shift in my stand on ethnicity that I tried to express earlier, but Time Warner's sucky service prevented me. I am changing my rant about the American descendant of African slaves as a single ethnic group. They are. This is a major shift for me.
We white folk in America know where we came from more specifically than they. The fact that most don't care is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the American Indian is not just an American Indian, he is also a Sioux, Cherokee, or whatever tribe of origin. A White American is not just an American, he can trace his roots to one or several European nations. An Asian American is not just an American, he can trace his roots to a specific country and culture.
An African American cannot.
The slave trade, slavery, and racial bigotry stripped most ethnic identity from African slaves in America (I can't speak for other slavery or other countries). Their only identity they were left with was "slave" and whatever culture they could piece together from myriad African ethnicities. The culture that developed was a rich one, unique in that it was shorn of most of it's original roots. The African American is a mutt of Africa.
We Americans celebrate our American-ness as well as our history. We don't celebrate our whiteness because it is not our identity. Euro-Americans' identity reaches back to Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other places of ethnic origin ... and we celebrate it.
Black Americans - those descendant of slaves - have only their physical characteristics as the one sure link to a past before America. Their ethnicity comes wholly from America. They should celebrate it, and we should cheer them on.
My take on it ....we are all members of the HUMAN RACE with diverse cultures, history, environment etc etc. I find the differences interesting and exciting. Language, skin colour, beliefs etc have no bearing on the how I see people provided they live good lives with respect and tolerance for others.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
:rolleyes:
And if different-race people cannot effectively raise different-race children, why should we "allow" mixed-race couples? Hmmmmmmm? 
