Quote:
Originally posted by kddani
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
It's been discussed here on GC plenty that this is NOT really all that appropriate or currently accurate. The preferences of those in those GLOs have been clearly expressed, yet so many posters fail to respect that. I don't understand why, seems pretty ignorant and rude.
ETA- I'm sorry if this comes across snippy. But it has been made clear that this isn't a proper way to address the groups.
|
To continue to fan the flames.....
In reference to NPC's being called historically White, I really (and sincerely) do not understand why people are getting offended. Note the term
historically , meaning
in the past . If anyone can provide evidence of there being an African American woman initiated into an NPC before 1960 / 1965 - and the chapter was not closed because an attempt was made to initiate an African American woman, then please provide it.
Now, I do agree that in these days and times NPCs are no longer majority or exclusively White. So, to refer to NPCs as WGLO's would be incorrect and offensive, but to deny an occurrance in
history would be wrong.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that part of the reason AOII was started was because there were Jewish women (i.e., they were not Protestant) who were denied membership to other NPCs because they were Jewish. Should AOII just ignore that part of their history? I would think not.
Historically Black GLOs are just that
historically Black, meaning that
in the past the members were (exclusively) Black. These days it is common to see White, Hispanic and Asian members of HBGLOs.
Again, not trying to offend, just trying to understand. I guess that one can assume that for most of the history of NPCs they had all White membership, so to point it out is like pointing out the obvious.
Threaded Mode