If I remember correctly that was the origin of communisim as well.

 

and illegals shouldn't have the same rights as the LEGAL citizens. (right to vote, right to work, etc)

 

I wasn't saying they should have the rights of legals...I was just trying to point out that 'LaRaza' is not racist because it is the working class of a country trying to rebell against the elite class (sort of like how France started democracy...) and since both the workers and the elites were the same race, it's not a racist phrase or movement or whatever you'd like to call it.


Yes, that is the same way communism started. But like I pointed out, it's also how the idea of democracy started.

 

we all know how well that worked.

Talk about spin.

It's not the way domocracy was started, democracy was a biproduct of sophisim.

 

It's really not that much spin. Working class rises up against dictator to form a government that is better for a larger percentage of the people. Just because communism and democracy started under the same conditions doesn't mean they're the same, or that I'm saying they're equall. It means democracy is a better choice for more of the people than communism.

I don't know why you'd get defensive about such a benign point.

 

Considering that everything the US did is based roughly on the Magna Carta, I'd say it worked out pretty well, especially for us.

 

I was actually referring to the early french attempt at democracy.

 

I'm not getting defensive, I think the argument is generic and can be used in almost any context.

You can say the same thing about facisim and anarchisim.

 

Back to LaRaza...

Wouldn't you think they'd be focusing thier efforts on Mexico, since there is so much more corruption and poverty there? I mean wouldn't you rather make a ****ty country better before you attemted to "perfect" an already competant social system?

 

Anarchy, maybe (I don't think anarchism's a word...). But since it hasn't really ever happened we don't know. Facism does not happen when the majority of people rise up to reform the government. That's assinine. If the majority rises up to tople a minority, that's the end of facism not the beginning practically by definition.

 

Yes, that's completely true. I was not trying to make the case that La Raza should come here and rise up, or even live. It's a much better idea for La Raza to rise up in Mexico and demand better leadership. I never said otherwise; I was merely responding to a post that asserted that La Raza is inherently racist, which it isn't at all. It's just overused and misguided at this point.

 

It's not nescescarilly the people rising up against an oppressive dictator as much as it is oppressive society.

When you put La Raza in this context, who are they rising up against?

America, the country that gives it's illegal population more freedom, rights and compensation than thier country of origin?

Isn't Mexico the one oppressing them, instead of waving a flag that wronged them shouldn't they be trying to fix that system?

 

It is racist though since it only aims to benefit latinos, would you say the same if such an organization existed to raise charity for anglo saxons ?

At least Amnesty International doesn't limit itself to race.

 

No, cause it's an american movement not a mexican one. It's meant to help integrate better. But as with all politics, the movement itself uses the less educated and and loses genuine supporters along the way. Leaving only those craving attention and out for more then thier share.

 

That's the point I was leading to.

Nationalisim breeds racisim.