|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:18 pm
I don't understand why it is that Black Power is considered to be Communist, as is Asian Power, but Hispanic Power is democratic and White Power fascist.... Is it a race thing? (As If I have to ask...)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:18 pm
Their uses in history have been different, and the meanings have been changed. I know some older guys who are Mexican, El Salvadorian, and Cuban and were Leninists and Anarchists in the barrios of California in the 50s and 60s, there was a pretty good sized communist and anarchist latino movement. It has died out recently though. I don't see many people saying the Latino power movement is democratic but that may be my location (Texas).
However, I do see the white power thing, and here's the explanation for it- white people have always been in power in America, from the early Spanish settlers to the British to the revolution to now. So saying white power would be like saying "keep whites in power!" which would be racist, as it's saying that other races shouldn't be in power. On the other hand, Blacks have been heavily discriminated against throughout history, so saying "black power" means that blacks need more power (giving them equal power to other races), and need impowerment, which isn't racist, but a saying of equality. Same deal with Asians, and part of that one is that the Asian power movement has been strongly associated with Mao and possibly more so with Ho Chi Minh, who also wrote a lot about equality for the black power movement, and was a friend to the movement.
One of the reasons that the Black Power movement has been largely socialist is this- which countries refused to accept African Americans as equals? The U.S. and other capitalist nations. Which countries have always been open to minorities such as blacks and gays? Cuba, the P.R. of China, North Vietnam, The Soviet Union. Plus, what system always failed the minorities in an effort to further the wealth of the minority? Capitalism.
Did I explain that alright?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:21 pm
As for your poll, the black power movement wasn't only for blacks, and was actually heavily associated with Apalachians in Cinncinati, and Latinos and Asians all over the place. They accepted all races as brothers and as people to be held as equals, and the ones that didn't accept White membership had a pretty good reason to do so (check out "By any Means Neccesary" by Malcolm X for a bit more on that), but even those groups still worked with Whites, and supported all races being together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:37 pm
yes, you explained beautifully.
I don't believe I could've put it better.
But honestly, now I think the Asian Power movement (at least in China... that's sounds odd, Asian Power in China.... didn't know there was another kind...) is leaning heavily toward the right.
I wouldn't know.
I'm a sheltered American, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:42 pm
Interesting, I hadn't heard that (I'm an American also by the way).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:13 pm
The Leninator! Their uses in history have been different, and the meanings have been changed. I know some older guys who are Mexican, El Salvadorian, and Cuban and were Leninists and Anarchists in the barrios of California in the 50s and 60s, there was a pretty good sized communist and anarchist latino movement. It has died out recently though. I don't see many people saying the Latino power movement is democratic but that may be my location (Texas). However, I do see the white power thing, and here's the explanation for it- white people have always been in power in America, from the early Spanish settlers to the British to the revolution to now. So saying white power would be like saying "keep whites in power!" which would be racist, as it's saying that other races shouldn't be in power. On the other hand, Blacks have been heavily discriminated against throughout history, so saying "black power" means that blacks need more power (giving them equal power to other races), and need impowerment, which isn't racist, but a saying of equality. Same deal with Asians, and part of that one is that the Asian power movement has been strongly associated with Mao and possibly more so with Ho Chi Minh, who also wrote a lot about equality for the black power movement, and was a friend to the movement. One of the reasons that the Black Power movement has been largely socialist is this- which countries refused to accept African Americans as equals? The U.S. and other capitalist nations. Which countries have always been open to minorities such as blacks and gays? Cuba, the P.R. of China, North Vietnam, The Soviet Union. Plus, what system always failed the minorities in an effort to further the wealth of the minority? Capitalism. Did I explain that alright? What about Whites in Zimbabwe? And most of those in the People's Republic of China(Capitalist to the extreme) hardly ever meet those who aren't Chinese. And what about the Nanjing riots against African students? And we must also remember that China is constantly trying to colonize Tibet and East Turkestan, which they invaded. And as a side note, North Vietnam had no substantial ethnic minorities, and the Soviet Union was one of the harshest in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:25 pm
Totrue-Tufaar The Leninator! Their uses in history have been different, and the meanings have been changed. I know some older guys who are Mexican, El Salvadorian, and Cuban and were Leninists and Anarchists in the barrios of California in the 50s and 60s, there was a pretty good sized communist and anarchist latino movement. It has died out recently though. I don't see many people saying the Latino power movement is democratic but that may be my location (Texas). However, I do see the white power thing, and here's the explanation for it- white people have always been in power in America, from the early Spanish settlers to the British to the revolution to now. So saying white power would be like saying "keep whites in power!" which would be racist, as it's saying that other races shouldn't be in power. On the other hand, Blacks have been heavily discriminated against throughout history, so saying "black power" means that blacks need more power (giving them equal power to other races), and need impowerment, which isn't racist, but a saying of equality. Same deal with Asians, and part of that one is that the Asian power movement has been strongly associated with Mao and possibly more so with Ho Chi Minh, who also wrote a lot about equality for the black power movement, and was a friend to the movement. One of the reasons that the Black Power movement has been largely socialist is this- which countries refused to accept African Americans as equals? The U.S. and other capitalist nations. Which countries have always been open to minorities such as blacks and gays? Cuba, the P.R. of China, North Vietnam, The Soviet Union. Plus, what system always failed the minorities in an effort to further the wealth of the minority? Capitalism. Did I explain that alright? What about Whites in Zimbabwe? And most of those in the People's Republic of China(Capitalist to the extreme) hardly ever meet those who aren't Chinese. And what about the Nanjing riots against African students? And we must also remember that China is constantly trying to colonize Tibet and East Turkestan, which they invaded. And as a side note, North Vietnam had no substantial ethnic minorities, and the Soviet Union was one of the harshest in the world. I'm not speaking of individuals, but of nations. As a nation China ended segregation before the US, and was very socialist at the time. The Soviet Union ended segregation immidiatly, and attempted to equalize the races, although it faltered a bit. North Vietnam's policy is very anti-racist, and Ho Chi Minh was a huge supporter of the US movement, just read some of his writings and you'll see. What makes you so cynical about socialist nations? For the most part they've always been better then capitalist ones, which is all we can ask for right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:29 pm
The Leninator! Totrue-Tufaar The Leninator! Their uses in history have been different, and the meanings have been changed. I know some older guys who are Mexican, El Salvadorian, and Cuban and were Leninists and Anarchists in the barrios of California in the 50s and 60s, there was a pretty good sized communist and anarchist latino movement. It has died out recently though. I don't see many people saying the Latino power movement is democratic but that may be my location (Texas). However, I do see the white power thing, and here's the explanation for it- white people have always been in power in America, from the early Spanish settlers to the British to the revolution to now. So saying white power would be like saying "keep whites in power!" which would be racist, as it's saying that other races shouldn't be in power. On the other hand, Blacks have been heavily discriminated against throughout history, so saying "black power" means that blacks need more power (giving them equal power to other races), and need impowerment, which isn't racist, but a saying of equality. Same deal with Asians, and part of that one is that the Asian power movement has been strongly associated with Mao and possibly more so with Ho Chi Minh, who also wrote a lot about equality for the black power movement, and was a friend to the movement. One of the reasons that the Black Power movement has been largely socialist is this- which countries refused to accept African Americans as equals? The U.S. and other capitalist nations. Which countries have always been open to minorities such as blacks and gays? Cuba, the P.R. of China, North Vietnam, The Soviet Union. Plus, what system always failed the minorities in an effort to further the wealth of the minority? Capitalism. Did I explain that alright? What about Whites in Zimbabwe? And most of those in the People's Republic of China(Capitalist to the extreme) hardly ever meet those who aren't Chinese. And what about the Nanjing riots against African students? And we must also remember that China is constantly trying to colonize Tibet and East Turkestan, which they invaded. And as a side note, North Vietnam had no substantial ethnic minorities, and the Soviet Union was one of the harshest in the world. I'm not speaking of individuals, but of nations. As a nation China ended segregation before the US, and was very socialist at the time. The Soviet Union ended segregation immidiatly, and attempted to equalize the races, although it faltered a bit. North Vietnam's policy is very anti-racist, and Ho Chi Minh was a huge supporter of the US movement, just read some of his writings and you'll see. What makes you so cynical about socialist nations? For the most part they've always been better then capitalist ones, which is all we can ask for right now. A capitalist nation shouldn't go side-by-side with being a racially segregated nation. If there has been a pattern of capitalist nations in the past being racist, that is purely coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:17 pm
I'd say racism and capitalism go pretty well together.
When you have a system based on exploitation, greed, oppression, and personal success over the welfare of others, you're going to have exploitation built into its society. Whites are always wealthier in capitalist societies, and since they get their wealth from exploiting others, it behooves them to keep the poor, poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
