🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.180958.28227@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, val@news.ccutah.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:
>A few years ago, the president of the NAACP was in a controversy about racism.
>When confronted directly by reporters, his response was "I can't be a racist
>since I'm a minority."
>
>I disagree.  I hope that this isn't the view of the rest of the NAACP.
>
>Any opposing points of view?

    I think the viewpoint was just that because he is a minority, he
(for some reason) does not have power, and therefore can not suppress
others.   I don't think he means, by virtue of being a minority only,
he can not be a racist.   If this were the case, then one could simply
recall South Africa, and I think his mind would have been changed quite
quickly.  In any case, I also do not agree that minorities lack power.
If this were the case, then it would be senseless to have groups like
the NAACP because they would not be able to have any influence because
they are just a minority.   It's my opinion that some minorities and
the majority want to be racist, though I mean that in a positive
sense.   If racism means gaining more power and influence for a specific
race (which will almost always be perceived as being at the expense
of another race), then there are those who believe one should help
their own race.  That their own race is different and always will be
different from another race, and that there shouldn't always be an
attempt to integrate people so they act alike.   While differences
are nice and sometimes unavoidable, too many differences leads to
conflict.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu