DSTCHAOS |
03-19-2005 05:29 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by IceColdAce06
Bad assumption number two.
You're assuming that if afforded the opportunity to join a predominately White GLO, the organizations would not have existed. Highly doubtful. Given that people maintain their group ties even today where opportunies to join more mainstream organizations are readily available, I seriously doubt your premise. That's reality. Look at the number of organizations being formed today to address specific needs. Whether it's more Black, Latino, Multicultural, Gay and Lesbian or whatever, it's still about like minded people providing mutual support to each other and especially when outnumbered in a group.
Besides, the influence of the organizations you mentioned hasn't decreased due to other opportunities. It has decreased because they never changed their focus to adapt to the changing times. You can't use a 1960 message to address a 2005 audience. Update the message and make it more current and relevant and the influence will return.
|
You are attempting to debate a moot point.
Many of us have known for years that the general founding of BGLOs is rooted in exclusion from predominently white social institutions and networks (including but not limited to GLOs). Many of us also know that the general founding of BGLOs is ALSO rooted in a desire to have our own and address our needs.
See how the latter does not have to contradict the former?
I really do want you to do some extensive research on this topic, though. Research what happens when groups are given the opportunity to form heterogenous networks as well as maintain homogenous ties.
You already acknowledged that the message of these traditionally Black organizations hasn't changed with the times. ***BINGO!!!*** Blacks tend to have more opportunities (which includes what organizations we hypothetically have access to) than 30, 40, or 50 years ago which shapes how we view our social world, religion, and families.
Good luck.
|