Why is there a lack of Minority involvement

[Lardlad95]

With the exception of revolutions occuring in places like Asia, africa, or latin america there seems to be a lack of minority involvement in the movement.

I can't speak for Europe of course, but atleast in America the majority of leftists are caucasians, and it used to be caucasian males. every now and again I"ll see a black leftist, or a latino one, I think I've met one asian person who was leftist. It just seems odd to me that the very people who get the shaft in America don't seem to be all that involved. I can understand why some asians in America haven't signed up for the revolution. Certain Asian demographics have made alot of progress in America. However Asians from areas like Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. are in the same position as blacks and latinos.

One problem I think with blacks is that our community has made some progress during the post civil rights era, and once this happened we just stopped. We became content with our position and haven't tried to gain anymore power. We got some laws past without realizing that more needed to be done.

I can't really speak for latinos, I'm hald puerto rican but I haven't speant that much time in the puerto rican community...

Does anyone have an explanation? Or has anyone had any sucess bringing minorities to the movement?

[FatFreeMilk]

Maybe because minorities, at least Mexican minorities, are afraid of being deported. If we do something to attract attention the la migra will come and take all the "illegals" away. But this would only apply to america I guess. I bet I know some people that are here "illegaly" and I don't even know it. It's the fear factor that is holding us back.

[ComradeRed]

I know that this is only America, I think in Europe it is not quite true (don't quote me). But if it isn't what FFM said, it is ussually because they are gulled into a false happiness which prevents them from doing anything.

[Individual]

Here would be some of my best guesses:

Minority being the key word, there is immediately less minorities to participate.

Of the minorities, not all would participate. Reason being that many come to this country under one assumption: the American Dream. The dream of becoming rich, and the dream of leaving from a poverty stricken nation.

Jump for my neck on this, however it is generally the case: Minorities, predominently from extremely impoverished Asian countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, and surrounding areas), make more money here holding the short end of the stick than they could back home. Many move here for very short periods of time (few years) with plans of working. They take the made money, and either save it or send it back home. This money equates to wealth in their prior nation.

With this, America is looked at as a dream. All of you can denounce the way of American politics, however to those that are truly stricken with poverty America is viewed with hope. Whether or not this "hope" comes true when they get here, most do not have the time to become involved in their treatment. These minorities are hard workers, and the US would likely have zero economy without them. However they do not come here looking to change this country, instead to support the lives of themselves and their family.

As for the minorities that are US born citizens, most I have met are liberal. We cannot always expect minorities to find the betterment in Marxism, as statistics of population in general do not find the betterment of Marxism. Most minorities believe in the American way of government, as with most Americans. Therefore they turn to the political spectrum which would suit them so; liberal democrat. We cannot expect all minorities, let alone all people, to find the good in Marxism. Most find the existing form of government to suit their everyday lives. They are more focused on survival (working hard) to support themselves and their families, then to become involved with "changing the world". Again, as with most of the general population.

This doesn't mean that minorities aren't concerned, and nor does it mean that all minorities lack involvement. I believe it means that most believe that America can present them with a better life, and most stay focused on supporting their families.

Whether or not America presents them with this "dream", they stay focused on work. Something in which Americans have forgotten.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:55 AM
Here would be some of my best guesses:

Minority being the key word, there is immediately less minorities to participate.

Of the minorities, not all would participate. Reason being that many come to this country under one assumption: the American Dream. The dream of becoming rich, and the dream of leaving from a poverty stricken nation.

Jump for my neck on this, however it is generally the case: Minorities, predominently from extremely impoverished Asian countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, and surrounding areas), make more money here holding the short end of the stick than they could back home. Many move here for very short periods of time (few years) with plans of working. They take the made money, and either save it or send it back home. This money equates to wealth in their prior nation.

With this, America is looked at as a dream. All of you can denounce the way of American politics, however to those that are truly stricken with poverty America is viewed with hope. Whether or not this "hope" comes true when they get here, most do not have the time to become involved in their treatment. These minorities are hard workers, and the US would likely have zero economy without them. However they do not come here looking to change this country, instead to support the lives of themselves and their family.

As for the minorities that are US born citizens, most I have met are liberal. We cannot always expect minorities to find the betterment in Marxism, as statistics of population in general do not find the betterment of Marxism. Most minorities believe in the American way of government, as with most Americans. Therefore they turn to the political spectrum which would suit them so; liberal democrat. We cannot expect all minorities, let alone all people, to find the good in Marxism. Most find the existing form of government to suit their everyday lives. They are more focused on survival (working hard) to support themselves and their families, then to become involved with "changing the world". Again, as with most of the general population.

This doesn't mean that minorities aren't concerned, and nor does it mean that all minorities lack involvement. I believe it means that most believe that America can present them with a better life, and most stay focused on supporting their families.

Whether or not America presents them with this "dream", they stay focused on work. Something in which Americans have forgotten.
This seems true for immagrants, but there are already substantial Asian, Latino, and black communities in america, many of them here for many generations. Whats the explanation for the ones who have been here for decades or in the case of blacks centuries

[antieverything]

Whites are about to become the minority in my home state but that doesn't stop them from dominating every progressive/leftist group I've come into contact with. In fact, the only latino activist I've ever met was...some ex-DEA guy who came to speak out against Oliver North giving the Salvation Army's anniversary speech. I can't remember his name.

[Pete]

Asians are the majority in Asia LL, thus they are not minorities. Europeans are the minority there. (Sorry for the one liner, and 'mr obvious' comment)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:32 PM
Asians are the majority in Asia LL, thus they are not minorities. Europeans are the minority there. (Sorry for the one liner, and 'mr obvious' comment)
I meant asians who came from those areas and moved here

[Individual]

...

As for the minorities that are US born citizens, most I have met are liberal. We cannot always expect minorities to find the betterment in Marxism, as statistics of population in general do not find the betterment of Marxism. Most minorities believe in the American way of government, as with most Americans. Therefore they turn to the political spectrum which would suit them so; liberal democrat. We cannot expect all minorities, let alone all people, to find the good in Marxism. Most find the existing form of government to suit their everyday lives. They are more focused on survival (working hard) to support themselves and their families, then to become involved with "changing the world". Again, as with most of the general population.

[gaf]

minority means you beleive in it.because you beleive in superiority.
get out of it dont be frustrated be a man without color,religion,just be yourself,think by yourself,deep inside you are here don't be afraid (the other one is like you)
he is only living to get a good life,dont forget this one or you will live as a living dead.

[redstar2000]

I think there are more people of color active on the left than those of us who are white realize.

The media, even on the left, has a "white bias". Demonstrations by people of color simply don't get the same attention.

Many people of color, distrustful of white manipulation, prefer to work in their own groups. These groups have a "lower profile" than corresponding white groups...fear of violent police repression is of greater concern.

I also think at the present time that people of color are more attracted to "single-issue" groups...struggling for specific reforms in the present system seems more practical and more likely to lead to immediate improvement in their lives than vague promises of communism and elaborate theoretical structures. That doesn't mean they necessarily reject Marxism or even anarchism (there is a national anarchist group set up and run by people of color in the U.S....and there have been "Marxist"-Leninist parties composed of and led by Latinos, African-Americans, Puerto-Ricans, Chinese-Americans and Filipino-Americans at various times over the last three decades). But, for example, you don't really "need" Marxism or anarchism to struggle against racist police brutality in your town.

The conservative influence of traditional religious beliefs and institutions has also been a serious obstacle to the radicalization of people of color. Think of how many "leaders" among people of color have come from those religious instututions...and how conservative or even reactionary their messages have generally been.

So I think there are genuinely revolutionary elements among people of color...and more of them than we know. But I also think it will be a while before they break through into public attention generally by winning wide-spread support in their own communities.

In a period of reaction, it's hard to make significant progress...hard for everybody!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dawood]

I don't consider this a problem for 'the movement' in Sweden at least. We are a pretty mixed bunch.
It is always fun at demonstrations, punx, skins, kickers and casuals, all gathered to fight togheter (sometimes literarly).
What we have a lack of is organized women, this because the fighter is the norm. If you can't carry yourself in pitched battle against nazis and coppers you are left outside on many activities. And it is both that guys don't trust women to fight, and that the women don't trust themselves to fight.

[dopediana]

in the case of immigrants, though they may live and get treated like shit the standards are still higher than where they came from. university is not often an option. they don't make use of the age of technology as well as they would otherwise and although they identify that something is wrong they're possibly disinclined to do anything about it. there was a little old asian woman working at this 7-11 i stopped at the other day to get gas. very pleasant, cheery smile and voice. her nametag said she'd been working there for 12 years. can you imagine the depression? stuck working your tail off 60 hours a week at 7-11 you don't even have time to get news. all your energy just must be drained from you. it's tough to be lower class...

[scrap metal]

a lot of it might have to deo with this

in america, a white kid who waive a hammer and sickle is declared to be "going through a phase"

in america, a minority kid waiving a hammer and sic kle is an 'extreme leftist' a 'radical' or, more recently, a 'terrorist'. A lot of them simply have too much to lose.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:06 PM
...

As for the minorities that are US born citizens, most I have met are liberal. We cannot always expect minorities to find the betterment in Marxism, as statistics of population in general do not find the betterment of Marxism. Most minorities believe in the American way of government, as with most Americans. Therefore they turn to the political spectrum which would suit them so; liberal democrat. We cannot expect all minorities, let alone all people, to find the good in Marxism. Most find the existing form of government to suit their everyday lives. They are more focused on survival (working hard) to support themselves and their families, then to become involved with "changing the world". Again, as with most of the general population.
Good point. What interests me though is why most minorities are liberal democrats? It would seem that they would rather be conservatives because of the whole religion thing. Most Latinos are Roman Catholics, blacks southeren baptists, and while most asians I meet are Buddhist the rest seem to be Protestants. These religions agree with the values of conservatives...but I guess abortion takes a back seat to college tuition

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by scrap [email protected] 11 2004, 03:22 AM
a lot of it might have to deo with this

in america, a white kid who waive a hammer and sickle is declared to be "going through a phase"

in america, a minority kid waiving a hammer and sic kle is an 'extreme leftist' a 'radical' or, more recently, a 'terrorist'. A lot of them simply have too much to lose.
good point

[Lardlad95]

I think there are more people of color active on the left than those of us who are white realize.

.......nah I'm black and I still don't see that many minorities in the leftist movement


The conservative influence of traditional religious beliefs and institutions has also been a serious obstacle to the radicalization of people of color. Think of how many "leaders" among people of color have come from those religious instututions...and how conservative or even reactionary their messages have generally been.

This I agree with, the majority of black leaders atleast are from religous backgrounds. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, niether of whom I wish to claim. Martin Luther kIng Jr, Malcolm X, etc. Religion plays a huge part in the black community. Oddly enough though Malcolm X was a socialist so...I'm not sure how much he played into it, and louis farrakahn is even more extreme than some of the people here.

[percept¡on]

My experience has been that a lot of minorities think that being given equal footing as whites will solve most of their problems. When poor blacks have problems with the police or the state or the system in general, they see the primary reason as their skin color rather than their socioeconomic status. This is, in my opinion, most black socialist, etc. movements eventually turn into black nationalist movements. Case in point is the Uhurus (the INDPUM). (Some groups of) Minorities feel, justifiably or not, that racism is the major obstacle that must be overcome; they see the capitalist system as working for whites, and that it will work for them if they are given a fair shot. Of course these are just gross generalizations based largely on my experiences trying to sell communism to poor blacks in Tampa and St. Petersburg.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:11 PM
Oddly enough though Malcolm X was a socialist so...I'm not sure how much he played into it, and louis farrakahn is even more extreme than some of the people here.
Malcolm X was a mysoginist, a black nationalist, a religious fundamentalist and a capitalist. If he was a socialist as well I'm sure that was dwarfed by the above.

MLK jr. was heading towards socialist/communist ideology when he died. That's prolly why the government merked him. :(

[Hampton]

I think your view on Malcolm is a bit skewed. When you say Malcolm was a misogynist but then not include that with Martin you are not really being fair. The Civil Rights Movement as a whole was not directly favored to women, there were not that many women leaders in the movement for different reasons. And to point just Malcolm out for it, which I don?t necessarily agree with, it really not fair.

He was a black nationalist during a period of his life, which he defined as controlling the politics and economy of their community, but upon returning from Hajj he had changed his mind about this belief and was not using the phrase during the last few months of his life.

"We nationalists used to think we were militant. We were just dogmatic. It didn't bring us anything."

I looked up the word fundamentalist and saw it as adherence to a theology, so he would be guilty on that front, but so would Martin. But I think the more important thing is that he knew not to mix Islam with his politics, and he said this in his speech "Ballot or the Bullet' and "Message to the Grass Roots". Whereas Martin did not.

And if he was a capitalist he was a poor one, saying "it's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely."

But I do think that the reason there may be a lack of minorities in the movement is because the true lower class people, barely getting by each month, are to busy struggling to get by and don't have this free time to march in the streets to change the system that's above them.

But then again I don't think that there is necessarily a lack of involvement, a few weeks ago I went to see Dead Prez and more than half of the crowd was minorities throwing there fists up in the air and yelling to change the system. So I think another thing that it might be is that there are involved but it's just not as mainstream as other more prominent groups.

You might also have to look at history in America, what generally happens when a true minority movement comes up and begins to threaten the existing social order they usually get killed off and once they get aware of that they might not be that upfront and try to stay more low key, if that makes any sense.

[elijahcraig]

And if he was a capitalist he was a poor one, saying "it's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely."

He also supported the Cuban revolution. In Jon Lee Anderson’s biography of Che, at a speech in I think Bolivia, Malcolm made his support clear by saying that they would “eat them up” in reference to anti-Castro Cubans.

I’m not sure if this is good enough for some people, as the Mandela thread shows, but it is good enough for most of us.



From my experience, most blacks do not trust the system, or at least most poverty-entrenched blacks do not. I formerly went to a school with probably 95% black population, and the school was actually falling apart due to lack of funding. Malcolm X got a lot of respect from the “smart” kids (as most people in school are idiots first of all). The system, in terms of government, whatnot, was absolutely distrusted by the majority. Though they had no “ideology” which they followed, it was just a reaction. Guess what, just to put another layer to the story, I moved when my father was transferred from one mill to another into another city, and I went to a school which was about 80% white or so, and ….it was funded extremely well, even got awards for being the “best school.” To those who say racism is dead (Bill O’Reilly) or that capitalism helps blacks.

[Vladimir I. Kropotkin]

On Malcolm being a capitalist, he lived in self-imposed poverty throughout most of his adult life. As a child he lived, like many African Americans in extreme poverty, he hustled, was imprisoned, then lived day to day. The rest of his life he lived in a theologically motivated poverty, so i fail to see how how one could label him a capitalist, did he own the means of production? did he support or oppose those who did? If anyone was a capitalist it was MLK jr.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by Vladimir I. [email protected] 13 2004, 05:29 AM
On Malcolm being a capitalist, he lived in self-imposed poverty throughout most of his adult life. As a child he lived, like many African Americans in extreme poverty, he hustled, was imprisoned, then lived day to day. The rest of his life he lived in a theologically motivated poverty, so i fail to see how how one could label him a capitalist, did he own the means of production? did he support or oppose those who did? If anyone was a capitalist it was MLK jr.
He advocated blacks taking over the businesses (means of production) in the black community. He was for black economic expansion.

Look I'm a fan of Malcom as a fighter of oppression but don't rewrite history.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:26 AM
From my experience, most blacks do not trust the system, or at least most poverty-entrenched blacks do not. I formerly went to a school with probably 95% black population, and the school was actually falling apart due to lack of funding. Malcolm X got a lot of respect from the “smart” kids (as most people in school are idiots first of all). The system, in terms of government, whatnot, was absolutely distrusted by the majority. Though they had no “ideology” which they followed, it was just a reaction. Guess what, just to put another layer to the story, I moved when my father was transferred from one mill to another into another city, and I went to a school which was about 80% white or so, and ….it was funded extremely well, even got awards for being the “best school.” To those who say racism is dead (Bill O’Reilly) or that capitalism helps blacks.
Oddly enough I've been in the same situation. Going to exceptionally poor black schools and exceptionally wealthy white ones. Oddly enough though I went to the rich one first. The difference is astounding. 6th graders doing pre-algebra in one, and 7th graders with 1st grade reading levels in the other. It was an extremely weird transition going from one to another. The rich shcool had the benefits of the best teachers in town, the finest facilities. The poor school was a testament to the failure of the system to help the gentrified black community of milwaukee.

Also...o'Rielly thinks racism is dead? I know the man is nuts but damn. Though I did read one of his interviews that was written down in which he said blacks should be grateful for slavery.

It really is a shame I was getting to hate him less...but now he's back in the same category as Ann Coulter

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 13 2004, 07:56 AM
He advocated blacks taking over the businesses (means of production) in the black community. He was for black economic expansion.

Look I'm a fan of Malcom as a fighter of oppression but don't rewrite history.
I was aware of that, though I always figured it had more to do with empowering the community, as opposed to black capitalism. I mean what power can be held within a community if none of the people who own the means of production live in teh community