In the article Race Rebels by Robin D.G. Kelley, it mentions something ironic and thought-worthy. "Such an approach not only disregards diversity and conflict within groups, but it presumes that the only struggles that count take place through institutions" (Kelley, 99). This is an interesting idea that brings to light the flaws of counter-oppressive forces. Institutional groups such as the NAACP and Urban League are established with the main goal to advocate and gain equality for members of their group. However, Kelley argues that rather than helping, it disregards struggles and diversity.
In a way, I can see how using blanket terms can shift emphasis onto different subjects. For example, the NAACP advocates for rights for African American people and people of color. This doesn't explicitly state out the different ethnicities or countries of origin of the people in the organization. The use of the NAACP blurs the distinctions of race borders and as a result, people lose their unique sense of cultural identity. This approach of fighting institutions with more institutions clouds the importance of diversity and distinct minority groups.
Institutionally established organizations ignore conflict within groups as well. A main concept in this article was class status. People working at McDonalds tend to be of lower education and socioeconomic class. There are inequalities within people of the same race. There can even be racism and conflicts experienced intra-racially. People are under the assumption that you cannot be discriminatory against your own race. However, that is not the case. The inequalities between groups are seen as minute and deemed unrealistic.
The message of the article states that in order to fight these oppressive institutional forces, we must not create these new institutions to fight our battles. Rather, we must find strategies that acknowledge diversity and conflict of minority groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment