- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 13,536
- Reaction score
- 7,377
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You have completely misunderstood my point and assumed something instead. Want to try again?
Nah, I understood it perfectly.
You have completely misunderstood my point and assumed something instead. Want to try again?
If you really want the original Spanish definition of la raza you have to find a library that has an old Spanish dictionary from the 1700's. La Raza comes from the term of blood as in breading horses. Pure blood, as in pure blood race.
In what is California today (Alta California) prior to the Mexican-American War the "Californios" main lines of group cohesiveness were drawn by conflict with Mexican authorities. Consequently Californios had tended to emphasize regional and family loyalties more than loyalty to race or country.
When Mexico gained it's independence from Spain, they emptied their jails and used Alta California as a penal colony. These Mexicans were mestizos unlike the Californios who were European Spanish blood descendent's of the Conquistadors. These new Mexicans were considered nothing but thief's and no better than Indians. They were called "cholos."
After the Mexican-American War the La Raza movement came into being by Mexican cholos in Los Angeles (1850) with the tendency being to move from a particular allegiance to the United States towards redefining their loyalties in racial terms.
La Raza connoted racial, spiritual and blood ties with Latin America, particularly with Mexico.
Those of all of the La raza movement and organizations are nothing but Mexican nationalist.
There were many La Raza organizations over the decades, "La Raza Hispano-Americano", "La Raza Esanola", "National Council of La raza." But they all had one thing in common, they all were Mexican nationalist.
Their agenda of keeping alive the sense of Mexican patriotism, and at the same time, hold on to the Mexican culture, language and reject the Anglo-American language, customs, culture and assimilation into the American society.
La Raza, as in keeping the blood pure.
For what it's worth, the "left" doesn't have to convince minorities of anything. Conservatives do an excellent job of that, which is why minorities reject them, and will always reject them.
Nah, I understood it perfectly.
Actually Conservatives offer much more to minorities and support them being functioning and contributing members of society that are success stories. Why? The Conservatives are about making money and having a large minority class of people dependent on Government hand-outs is counter productive to the entire goal.
In my opinion, racism should be denounced. Period.
Hold on, don't start without me. I have to go settle all the debates in the Abortion and Middle East sections.
Then you are insulting me and insinuating that I am a racist? Is that it?
Lol, okay you win.
Great debating style...
I never said you were a racist.
I said conservatism is hostile towards minorities, which it is. It always has been, and it always will be. That's why most minorities, especially blacks, always and will always reject them.
What's to debate? Nothing I say will change your mind.
I know that you never said that I was a racist. If you did I would have quoted you instead of specifically asking if you were "insinuating" it.
I made a comment to which you replied:
"Ahh, the good ole democrat plantation talking point. The "minorities are so dumb they are easily manipulated white liberals" mantra. One of my favorites."
It looks as if you are indicating that my point reflects the one above. That I think or am saying that "minorities are so dumb they are easily manipulated white liberals". I was not indicating anything of the like and you responded that essentially, "nope, you understood what I meant". Don't try to weasel out of your words dude.
Both sides are chock full of racism. It's racist to lynch a black man for being black, but it's racist to support Affirmative Action and a welfare system because you think that it's the only way a black person can advance.
The far right is more apt to physical racism, while the left is more apt to "intellectual racism" by route of diminished expectation.
If you weren't indicating that, i apologize.
Both sides are chock full of racism. It's racist to lynch a black man for being black, but it's racist to support Affirmative Action and a welfare system because you think that it's the only way a black person can advance.
The far right is more apt to physical racism, while the left is more apt to "intellectual racism" by route of diminished expectation.
And at the same time neither side is actually racist. They are trying to win elections and change policy to their way of thinking... it is politics.
Nice story. I will take documented evidence over a story any day however.
Of course there is. But the left uses race as a political weapon.
You are operating under the misconception that liberals support such policies because they consider blacks incapable of achieving success without them do to some innate inferiority on their part when the fact of the matter is that liberals don’t assume racist obstacles are too big to individually overcome—merely that they make it far more difficult than it should be for persons of color, and that this is a unique injustice.
It seems like every day that some prominent talking person from the left is making some racist comment against someone from the right especially on MSNBC.
:0) So now it's 'racist' for a white person on the left to talk about a white person on the right?
That's racist?