Ethnic-based Terrorism In The U.s.

[Pericles(MBA)]

I was disturbed to see that the AZ Republic had an article a few weeks ago about an organization called 'La Raza' (translated 'The Race'). The Republic article spoke highly of La Raza, which it labled "a pro-Chicano organization". It bothered me because there is also an organization in Mexico called 'La Raza' known for its violent political tactics.

I am concerned that the idealogy of Multiculturalism is blinding news reporters to the possible dangers from chicano culture. Here are the major negatives (for Central and South American emigrees):

1) History of violence and political upheaval in their home countries.

2) History of faith dominated culture.

3) A strong sense of seperate identity from American culture.

La Raza feeds off this past. Among the goals of the organization I am aware of, is that they desire a seperate Chicano nation within current U.S. borders.

The Republic article had nothing but good things to say about La Raza, which means they have defaulted on their jobs as journalists. Here is what I was able to find when doing a web search on the organization La Raza (also known as Aztlan).

Article from the La Raza (Aztlan) website

Review of La Raza

La Raza has active branches in California, Texas, and Arizona. Behind their political beliefs they have a strong sense of their Catholic faith.

Hispanics coming to the U.S. should be encouraged to shed the negatives of their past, and La Raza should be closely monitored by Homeland Security. So far I have seen very little attempts to make sure integration of the hispanic population is moving forward. California and Arizona did pass an English only law recently (approved by popular vote), but I would argue that more needs to be done.

[BobbyT]

Interesting post. I've been reading a lot of your posts on here, and am wondering if I might pose a question based on something you said during our last exchange. You had told me that you thought Objectivists worried too much about the spread of the philosophy. You said you did not plan to participate much in Objectivist forums. Yet here you are. Why?

I also notice that you have been spending time on #Aynrand. Despite the fact that you labeled Bearster an "anti-Objectivist" and said you had turned him in to 'the Objectivist authorities' years ago. So do you still think Bearster is an anti-Objectivist?

Your presentation style has not differred much since we last met. I notice you claim a degree you do not hold, and write as if you were a seasoned Objectivist. In truth you have not even attended a single Objectivist conference. Do you intend to continue on with claiming to be an Objectivist and yet also claiming no interest in the philosophy? Do you still think activism in politics is more important that philosophy?

I would be interested to see your reply.

[Pericles(MBA)]

Robert-

Your comments are almost below the level of reply. You question my sincerity as an Objectivist, you claim I present myself in an inflated manner.

I make no apologies for things I have done in the past. I didn't come to this forum to discuss the past. Between yourself and the other nasty comments I have been receiving in IM's I am finding this forum less welcoming than I first thought.

Haven't you used my arguments from past discussions in your postings on this and other forums? If those are the arguments of an anti-Objectivist then why use them? I don't claim to be an expert in any area of Objectivism, but I have been an Objectivist for almost 18 years.

If I make you uncomfortable then avoid me. I know there are Objectivists I avoid, but I don't expect them to disappear from the Objectivist populace. I certainly plan to be around for awhile.