Why? And which part of my statement?
MOST of it. “Bad lack to be born white?” (sic) What a stupid statement that is. People have an innate need to be seen as a victim? Another one.
I see your point, but allow me to add…
While certainly those groups existed due to a common bond, be it gay or skin color etc. But the groups lacked a lot of structure were able to assimilate into society. Certainly some things kept them back such as education, but they were still an integral part of our societal fabric.
BUT the GOVT had a better idea and they created classes of people:
"In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. The following characteristics are “protected” by federal law:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets ‘sex’ to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity 
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law."
However a look at these classes its almost impossible to not be a member in one or more. One has to ask, if we have a Constitution and the open line is “We the people” then why did the govt need to do this? The answer is simple: It allows the Feds/States to single out classes of people to bestow favoritism on and by the same token to deny another class of people or social engineering by the govt.
And by selective enforcement of its laws it can make one class superior to another…just as they have done!
Govt is ALL about CONTROL of its people…
Your brother gave us a lot of the above information. We appreciated it. Much of it I never knew before.
I didn’t say the identity was artificial, did I?
When blacks try to act like blacks, they get noticed.
The rest just fit in with society.
Actually, the concept of encouraging people to think of themselves as “Americans” first and foremost came from Theodore Roosevelt…NOT from Woodrow Wilson, who was a segregationist.
" I want to say – I cannot say too often – any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.
If I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic. "
– Woodrow Wilson, Final Address in Support of the League of Nations
But that’s not where the concept ORIGINATED, AS, which was my point.
They both used this rhetoric for the same reason, to destroy the political power of Mutual aid societies, and to push instead State-run welfare as the alternative.
Because as Woodrow Wilson also kept saying, we’re all in this together.
Unless (in Wilson’s case) one happened to be black. He was THE most virulent racist ever to sit in the White House…until Obama came along anyway.
Dave, none of this matters.
The point remains, that the argument against hyphenated Americans, was designed to take down Fraternal organizations, who offered aid along ethnic or religious lines.
To strengthen the scope and power of the Government. To further the progressive cause.
Roosevelt was a Progressive too, so he is no excuse. He was apart of the sickness we deal with today.
Of COURSE it matters. Whatever Teddy Roosevelt’s or Woodrow Wilson’s personal motives might have been, they were both right…that we should think of ourselves first, last and always as AMERICANS. Most of those claiming to be “African-Americans” haven’t been within 2000 MILES or 3 or 4 GENERATIONS of Africa. The same can be said of most “Italian-Americans” AND “Irish-Americans”.
I AM “Native American”…not because I have a single drop of American Indian blood, but because my family on BOTH sides have been living here since the 17th Century!
No, they were wrong; partial identities worked to maintain the Union, and keep Fraternal societies strong.
Patch works of mutual aid works better than a Government **** sandwich to all Americans. That’s what history shows us.
Your thinking is too 1960s centric, too based in the idea of what the Left used racial identities for, not how they were held up in the 1910s.
BS. Most of those claiming hyphenated identities today are doing so because they don’t WANT to be thought of as “just another American.” None of them have even a tenuous connection to any “mutual aid” organization trying to instill ethnic pride in its members. Certainly the NAACP doesn’t so qualify any longer.
Neither did they in the 1910s. They wanted to be Catholics, they wanted to be Italians, they wanted to be Polish.
In America. This did nothing to push a victim mentality, and did everything to keep communities strong, and suspicious of the Government. Which is precisely what we should want in our citizenry, hyphenated or not.
Modern American black pride is pretty much anti-white racism. It’s got nothing to do with cultural heritage The OP is correct to point out the double standard. It doesn’t matter whether black pride is the result of losing connection with black tribalist heritages. It’s not a good enough excuse for the racism and hate that members of the black pride victim class spread.