Those who don't like PoC but fight for our rights anyway....

[Lillith1991]

This is something that has been bothering me for a long while.

Why don't people acknowledge those who say, marched for civil rights but didn't like black people?Don't they deserve the same respect as those who zealously believed in the cause do? They might not of been doing for love of black people, maybe they did it just because it was the right thing, or because they realized that if the government could mistreat black people legally then them and their families were also fair targets. But they still did the right thing no matter their reason.

Why should white people who like black people and were involved with the civil rights movement be acknowledged more than them?

I feel the same about LGBT rights. I think people need to acknowledge that there are those who do something simply because they think its right, not because they like gay people, black people etc. Movements and progress aren't made by only those who zealously believe in a cause, they're also made up of people just attempting to do the right thing whether they like the group in question or not.

I feel we do ourselves and them a diservice by acting like everyone who was a part of the civil right movement liked African Americans. It's just not true.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I guess because I don't really know any non-black people who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, let alone know their motivations for doing so. I only know a few of the major figures, and the ones I know are black.

I know plenty of straight allies when it comes to LGBTQ issues, but I don't really know any who are allies despite disliking non-heteronormative people.

I'm sure they exist. I don't know them. If I did, sure, I'd acknowledge them, I guess.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "acknowledge"? What should we do?

 

[shaldna]

I think, sometimes, people don't want to step outside of the 'perfect' vision of an event. Somehow having people who perhaps don't like PoC, but who still want equality somehow doesn't have quite the same glittery ring to it as marches being entirely PoC and allies.

I guess it's partly because people can't understand why those people might have done that. Maybe it's because they really believed in overall equality depite their own personal attitudes, maybe it was peer pressure, maybe they just got swept up in it, maybe they just did it for shits and giggles. I think sometimes that people don't want to look too closely at it and perhaps find that there were 'supporters' who weren't really supporters, but who's numbers at marches and rallies helped to show the strength of support.

For whatever reason people where there, they helped, whether that was their intention or not.

 

[Lillith1991]

When I say acknowledge I mean to simply admit they exist. I don't know what we should do besides that honestly, or that we should do anything more then that. But often events like that are seen only in terms of hatred, or love. Good or bad. And humans aren't that simple.

My maternal grandfather respected black people without liking all of them, but he grew to like my dad and was very annoyed when my parents split according to my mom(he died when I was three). This same man dispite not being the most open when it came to his girls dating outside their race (Ironic considering he was Indian from India and white, and himself married a white Jewish woman) still loved all his grandchildren. Even the ones who's dads weren't white (which was the majority of them), or didn't have any white heritage(also a lot).

And if he hadn't been in the millitary at the time it was happening, he would of marched for civil rights most likely. He would of done it because it was the right thing to do. If he was alive he would do the same type of thing for gay marriage, because it was right. Because he didn't fight so others could be denied rights, whether he liked them or not.

I don't think every person who supports rights for different groups, has to like those groups. Or that people have to like a group as a whole to like a person who is a part of a group.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Every historical event gets retouched once it fades from current memory - both deliberately and accidentally.

 

[ap123]

Maybe it's a generational thing, but it's acknowledged enough for there to have been a label for the people you describe, "backyard liberals."

ie: Rights, rights, equality, rights...What? Not in my backyard.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Well, backyard (or NIMBY) liberals are at least better than the armchair type...

 

[Wilde_at_heart]

Every historical event gets retouched once it fades from current memory - both deliberately and accidentally.

Absolutely.

That and the 'great man' view of things, and the fixation on 'leaders' means that the ones who helped their rise are forgotten.

I guess because I don't really know any non-black people who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, let alone know their motivations for doing so. I only know a few of the major figures, and the ones I know are black.

I know plenty of straight allies when it comes to LGBTQ issues, but I don't really know any who are allies despite disliking non-heteronormative people.

I'm sure they exist. I don't know them. If I did, sure, I'd acknowledge them, I guess.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "acknowledge"? What should we do?

Loads of Jewish people, whites, etc were part of the civil rights movement and went on the marches and so on.

As for the OP, my own answer is that I don't care what people like or dislike; it's how they act that matters.

 

[shadowwalker]

I think there are a lot of people who absolutely believe in the old "I may hate what they say but I'll defend to the death their right to say it". It doesn't matter what one's personal beliefs about any particular group, it's a matter of believing in the rights of the individuals within that group.

 

[Hapax Legomenon]

I think a lot of people do not think that supporting civil rights and then turning around and telling your daughter you don't want her dating outside her race is completely contradictory. Believing that people have rights is one thing and not having biases in your personal life are two very different things.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Loads of Jewish people, whites, etc were part of the civil rights movement and went on the marches and so on.

I know that. I just don't know their names.

 

[cornflake]

I know that. I just don't know their names.

Kennedy, Johnson...

 

[Lillith1991]

I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not? How is it more nobel to support gay, black, Native American causes when you like those groups as a whole? Isn't it equally nobel to say, I don't like you because you're black, Native American etc., but your rights as a human matter to me?

 

[Hapax Legomenon]

I don't think it's a matter of liking or not liking a group, I think it's more about acknowledgement that a group is comprised of individuals. Rather than assuming certain things about your daughter's boyfriend because he's a part of a group, you decide whether you are okay with him based on whether or not he's a jackass, for example.

 

[cornflake]

I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not?

Where do you get the idea that it is?

 

[kuwisdelu]

I think what I'm trying to get at is, why is it considered more nobel to support a cause because you like a group, than supporting a cause because you believe in equality whether you like the group or not?

More noble? I don't know.

Racism is still racism, and citizenship and freedom and equality of rights were really only a first step.

A giant leap of a step, but a first step nonetheless. We're still fighting racism.

How is it more nobel to support gay, black, Native American causes when you like those groups as a whole? Isn't it equally nobel to say, I don't like you because you're black, Native American etc., but your rights as a human matter to me?

More noble when fighting for rights? I don't think it necessarily is.

But we're fighting for more than that, now. It's not all done and good.

We still need to combat the stereotypes and prejudice that foster those attitudes.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Though I do want to point out that there are reasons besides racism to want to marry inside your race.

 

[Hapax Legomenon]

Also, liking/supporting someone because they are a part of a group can make people in that group very uncomfortable and put them in a very difficult position.

 

[Lillith1991]

Where do you get the idea that it is?

From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

 

[ellio]

Sorry, the whole concept of this is ridiculous to me. If I heard someone tell me 'I hate you because you're black but you do deserve equal rights' I'm not going to give them recognition for being noble. C'mon now. I'd tell 'em help a cause if you want to but don't expect your racist ass to get brownie points for it.

 

[Lillith1991]

Though I do want to point out that there are reasons besides racism to want to marry inside your race.

This, I'm glad you pointed this out. It can also be a cultural thing. Sometimes a culture considers the child whatever its mother is.

 

[kuwisdelu]

From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

I think whether it's noble and whether it's possible are different questions.

Of course, it's possible. That's the whole libertarian schtick.

But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.

This, I'm glad you pointed this out. It can also be a cultural thing. Sometimes a culture considers the child whatever its mother is.

If your race is endangered and you don't want it to die out, you're going to think hard about this stuff.

Like I've said before, I don't believe in blood quantums myself, but that's the reality we live in.

 

[Lillith1991]

Sorry, the whole concept of this is ridiculous to me. If I heard someone tell me 'I hate you because you're black but you do deserve equal rights' I'm not going to give them recognition for being noble. C'mon now. I'd tell 'em help a cause if you want to but don't expect your racist ass to get brownie points for it.

I'm not saying they are nobel. I'm asking why society treats supporting the rights of a group because you like said group as more nobel.

 

[shakeysix]

My white parents signed petitions and participated in the Civil Rights Movement because they believed in the movement. They refused to shop at businesses that were segregated and had no problem telling people why. My dad was a small businessman himself and he lost business because of his liberal political views.

Did they like minority people? You have to remember that Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s dealt with Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, Native Americans and Buddhist people as well as people of color. Not all f these people agreed or even tried to agree on every point. Most did respect the other groups in a 1960 sort of way. Many of these people, at the time, regardless of race or religion, would have refused to consider marching for gay rights or even for women's rights. Women teachers did not even earn the same salary as their male counterparts. That was the way the world was in 1960.

Did my parents like minority people? It was a small town. We knew very few Jewish people, no Asians in our town. Mexican Americans were the majority of the minorities and believe me, in a small Kansas town they suffered plenty. My folks had several close African American friends. Their friendships dated back to schooldays. They were of the same small town middle class with working class parents who sacrificed for their educations, just like my grandparents did for my parents. A couple of those friendships I might call love.

Like is such an insipid, kid word. Respect works better for your argument. How many people marched and protested out of respect for their fellow Americans? More than they will ever be able to convey in two or three textbook pages.

It was a huge movement, an exciting, vivid, if sometimes frightening time to be alive. There was a new feeling of power, pride, anger, frustration, guilt, a sense of fairplay that had been denied too long and weariness with a system that was revealing itself to be as bitter and false as it was broken. Like I said, the movement can never be squeezed into a textbook lesson but "like" does not touch the sentiments of that era. --s6

 

[cornflake]

From the general lack of people I've come across so far in my life being able to actually admit you don't have to like a group to support their rights. So far AW is the only place I haven't really encountered the someone has to like a group to support their rights mentality. That's not to say its not there, just that I've seen a lot less of it here than I do in real life.

I don't think I've ever come across 'you have to like a group to support its rights,' as a thing. In fact, my entire life, I've heard the opposite. You've never heard anyone say they hate KKK (or whatever hate group members) but will go defend their right to spew their crap? I've heard that as long as I can remember.

I think whether it's noble and whether it's possible are different questions.

Of course, it's possible. That's the whole libertarian schtick.

But civil rights are only one aspect of fighting racism and sexism and homophobia and genderism, and if they're not going to support the rest of the struggle, it's hard to see them as true allies.

If your race is endangered and you don't want it to die out, you're going to think hard about this stuff.

Like I've said before, I don't believe in blood quantums myself, but that's the reality we live in.

Libertarian? See above - this is basic American, Constitutionally-based thinking where I come from.

Civil rights are only one aspect of fighting those things? What's the rest of the struggle? I don't understand.

I'm not saying they are nobel. I'm asking why society treats supporting the rights of a group because you like said group as more nobel.

I still don't get this - can you give an example of this dichotomous treatment or something?