This is a response to the comment that followed the one above and responded to mine. There is a difference between addressing economic needs and political empowerment as a major focus of organizing, legislation and policy, and selecting out one particular group as the beneficiaries. It is the general and universal (i.e. national) policies and laws and institutions that need reform, which will if enacted properly, will benefit specific groups. I believe that speaking or acting on behalf of a group's needs is divisive and risks too narrow a focus for reform. But addressing national policies and laws is much broader and will necessarily be of benefit to all citizens...as citizens, not as members of a group. The concept of group rights is not only distasteful but in violation of the universal values we profess to support. Members of a minority or "oppressed" group are entitled to equal rights with everyone else, not just those in their group. The regressive and divisive Identity Politics we are suffering under today is precisely the result of regarding people only as members of a group. Neither our forefathers nor our Constitution nor human rights groups function to protect group rights, only individual rights. ID is arguably the most anti democratic concept today, one which makes any kind of political unity or agreement completely impossible and sets up one group against another. It must be challenged at every turn and abolished.