Congressional Black Caucus Won't Admit White Member

I know, the headline sounds funny. Still, it looks as though this was a serious proposal. Newly-elected (and progressive) Democratic Rep. Stephen Cohen from Tennessee (Harold Ford Jr.'s old district) represents a black-majority district and had declared during the campaign that he intended to join the CBC.

Looks like those plans are kaboosh for now. Frankly, I see no reason why he shouldn't have been admitted, but I'm willing to hear what others have to say.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

And, the person in question is "white."

I know that's obvious, but it does raise an interesting perspective. ;)

yes - they can.

Here's a portland Danish meetup if you're interested? Though, you'd likely want to live in Portland, and you'd have to be .... "Danish." http://danish.meetup.com/41/boards/view/viewthread?thread=2136054

Congress as a whole often represents the "white groups." It disproportionately represents the wealthy, established and powerful, who are predominantly white.

The whole point of a caucus is to organize and elevate an minority point of view.

If one white rep is allowed to join then every white rep who is trying to avoid charges of racism would immediately want to join too, not out of any real concern for black issues and perspectives but as a form of political armor. The caucus would then be useless.

Tancredo Wants Minority Caucuses Banned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2703396

Cohen didn't try to join Congressional Black Caucus, aide says

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/NEWS0201/70125051

Several black groups and candidates criticized Cohen for joking during the campaign that his voting record made him seem like a black woman and for saying he would ask to join the Congressional Black Caucus if elected.

"He never asked to join and was never denied access to the Black Caucus," said Cohen's spokeswoman Marilyn Dillihay. Cohen's statement that he would seek to join the caucus was an offhand response to a reporter's question during the campaign, Dillihay said. He thought better of it once he was elected, she said.

David Bositis, who analyzes black politics for the Joint Center for Economic Studies in Washington, called it a "misstep" for Cohen to say he would try to join the Black Caucus.

The caucus has never allowed non-black members since its creation in the 1970s, Bositis said, and not all members represent majority black districts. The caucus does have an associate membership that permits non-blacks to join. "Maybe it was admirable for (Cohen) to want to join because he has similar legislative interests as the Congressional Black Caucus," Bositis said. "But he could have just applied to be an associate member."

:eyes:

imagine a Congressional White Caucus.

Imagine instead a Native American Caucus.

I'd be a proud founding member.

:hide:

I propose a ban on crappy beer, and a federalized Oktoberfest holiday....1 week in duration.

:nuke:

I propose 31 days!

;)

Barley John's is just up the road...! I'm a loyal customer...but summer is better in the hoppy BierGarten.

The beer sampler is a helluva deal, and it's quite fun to try the seasonals.

Been there....a lot when they first opened, less in the past few years. Probably a better place to go in the winter so you aren't sucking fumes and decibels.

We don't really have to imagine it, do we? Until recently, the congress was, for all intents and purposes a Congressional White Caucus.

What percentage of black blood makes you "black." Just asking.

The Birth of the CBC
In January 1969, newly elected African American representatives of the 77th Congress joined six incumbents to form the "Democratic Select Committee. The Committee was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC was born in 1971. Founding Members were Representatives Shirley Chisholm, William Clay, George Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Charles Diggs, Augustus Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and DC Delegate Walter Fauntroy. Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation, and to achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services. While the CBC has been primarily focused on the concerns of African Americans, the Caucus has also been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens.

The CBC is an interest group within congress that chooses to reflect upon the experiences unique to African Americans. I don't find that goal outlandish, personally.

If you ever get a chance, watch "The Color of Friendship". It's about the Dellums family taking in a white south african girl during apartheid. It's a Disney Made-for-TV movie, but anyone can enjoy it.

:hi:

to be in on knowing about these experiences.

I see where they are coming from, they only exist in the first place because of white racism, but there comes a time to bend the rules. Not that they should admit just any white, but this guy, since he is elected from a majority black district, is someone they should include, on that ground.

Reps in many districts represent people of color, the CBC is a group for African Americans who serve in congress. I think Cohen, and others here misunderstand the organization?

with the stated goals of the CBC and gaining their trust, rather than exposing them to the firestorm they are now experiencing.

:hi:

A Jewish politician has won the trust of a black constituency and his "first act of Congress" is exposing the CBC to attack. SUPER. There are likely many who will feel deeply betrayed. His style comes across as confrontational given the history of whites demanding entry into the CBC; Stark, Campfield :puke: and currently, with Cohen, a councilman from NYC.

WHO would want someone so utterly CLUELESS in the "inner sanctum?" Were he clever, perhaps he would have promised those who elected him a NEW CAUCUS such as "FRIENDS of the CBC" into which he would draw multicultural interests like the CHC to strenghten dialogue and build his creds. As it stands now, ALL he has accomplished in his first days is to draw a BIG bullseye target on a hardworking body. This is such a SAD state of affairs.

Do remember that the CBC was the ONLY RESISTANCE to the "selection" in 2000. Not a single white congresscritter supported them. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Thanks Stephen for setting off the media rottweilers yet again. You've got your seat now. If your sincere goal was reconciliation and cooperation you're off to a GREAT START! :sarcasm:

http://www.chci.org/

http://www.womenspolicy.org/caucus/

http://www.nativeamericancaucus.com/tribal.shtml

And, my personal favorite:

http://www.radanovich.house.gov/wine/

;)

I suspect Cohen was not aware that people who are members of the CBC have a common experience that he can't possibly fully understand? I don't assign him an ill motive, but I do think we need some perspective. Would he ask to join the Womens caucus because he represents women in his district? And, would he understand if he was declined membership because the Womens Caucus is a group that is exclusive to women?

;-)

:hi:

In the European ex-pat and black community, "Don't even GO THERE with them" is common currency.

He is a jewel. A bright and shining beacon in the wingnuttery land that Tennessee can be. I love Steve with all my heart.

Truly.

He did not mean harm and I doubt that he thought this would cause a firestorm. Knowing him, I know that he truly only meant it to help his constituents.

He's a 4th generation Tennesseean. His election is cause for celebration from MY point of view. However, he has displayed stunning stupidity despite his good intentions. HE BLEW IT with disrespect and insensitivity. Lucky for him I'm an ocean away, for were we to be in the same room his ears would be ringing from my boxing them. "DUMMKOPF!!! Was soll denn das? Bis Du bescheuert oder was???"

I cringe reading your last sentence. Do you even understand why?

one drop...That's why Tiger Woods and Barak Obama are considered "black". Many supposed "Liberals" and conservatives play in the same sandbox.

Or check the land owning laws in Louisiana.

to promote legislation to help African Americans? This guy is a progressive Democrat elected from a predominately African-American district. It seems like joining the CBC would be responsive to his constituents.

The Birth of the CBC
In January 1969, newly elected African American representatives of the 77th Congress joined six incumbents to form the "Democratic Select Committee. The Committee was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC was born in 1971. Founding Members were Representatives Shirley Chisholm, William Clay, George Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Charles Diggs, Augustus Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and DC Delegate Walter Fauntroy. Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation, and to achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services. While the CBC has been primarily focused on the concerns of African Americans, the Caucus has also been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens.

Part of what the caucus requires is that one has the common experience of being African American in our culture.

and other racists.

The black caucus is really setting itself up for calls of reverse-racism. Which, of course, is patently wrong, because this is plain out-and-out straight across the board racism.

The black caucus ought to hang its head in shame. And embarrassment.

It all depends on who's ox is gored. They have, however, opened themselves up to charges of hypocrisy which will be forthcoming.

???

Perhaps if you read my post, you would know.

I agree with her. The Congressional Black Caucus has legitimate reasons for being the Congressional BLACK caucus.

Racists always raise a stink whenever anyone tries to step back and get organized among themselves to fight racism. Their stink doesn't say anything legitimate about the CBC.

about a post in which I was *very explicit* in why they should hang their heads in shame.

I don't like people making shit up about what I said.

she can't take the discussion in that direction?

If your post misses a point, then anyone's free to bring it up. She did, and made a good point. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Here is slander defined:

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object)
5. to utter or circulate slander.

It's absurd to characterize my summary as "slanderous."

;)

I never said anything to disparage the CBC or its work, other than it's decision in this case, to which I said they should hang their heads in shame.

You came back and implied that I said they should hang their heads in shame for the work they do, which is a patently false and asshole accusation.

If you don't like my position that they should hang their heads in shame for denying this man entry into their caucus, then fine - say so, and we can disagree on that and go our own way and everything is okay. But don't go making shit up about stuff I never said - making shit up is assholic dishonesty of gigantic proportions and I don't appreciate it. You don't need to insult me, disparage me, nor slander me to disagree with me - just disagree with me. I'm a mature adult, I can take disagreement.

Or do you not see a difference between saying "I disagree with you on this one point" and slandering me?

I characterized your position in an accurate manner without saying anything at all about your "person."

I'm not clear on your point, sorry.

It had everything to do with their criteria for membership, which is distinct from their purpose. It seemed unfair to characterize the poster as being critical of the caucus's positions on issues, when that wasn't even discussed or addressed.

excluding from their group someone (with the wrong skin color) who wished to focus on issues unique to African-Americans, since he represents a majority African-American district.

People can listen to their constituents if they wish to represent them.

:eyes: don't black people deserve SOME things all to themselves???

I do not think that there ought to be anything for which race is a necessary qualification.

N.B. The above is true only in the same sense that an atom is made up of electrons orbiting a nucleus, or a rainbow is caused by raindrops acting like a prism. Obviously there are some things e.g. acting, undercover police work etc for which race is a relevant qualification, and always will be.

in which race is a necessary qualification. It isn't a matter of "ought."
It simply IS. You err about acting. Perhaps the backround story of "An Officer and A Gentleman" might interest you. Is it obvious to you that a string section in a major symphony must be white and Asian? :shrug:

Why should the string section in a major orchestra (I presume that's what you mean by symphany?) be white and Asian? And what does "An Officer and A Gentleman" have to do with this? Do you mean "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_officer_and_a_gentleman" ?

Is it the case that there was a scene in that film in which we see an orchestra, and the producer decided to only hire white and Asian actors to play those roles for the look of the thing?

If so, I'm not sure it was the right decision - it's not something I've thought about - but I think it was a legitimate one to make.

I think that refusing to cast an actor in a role in a film intended to be realistic on the grounds of their race (or any other physical characteristic) is unreasonable.

My baby is also a number cruncher (my entreaties that he take JUST ONE COURSE that did NOT involve number crunching fell on deaf ears. :SIGH:) I see you in a new light now. MY "excuse" for my curmudgeonly stance is that I'm an oboist (we're pretty farkin' weird, too). :rofl:

Shanti asked, "Don't black people deserve SOME things all to themselves?"

Your "short answer" was NO. "I do not think that there should be anything for which race is a necessary qualification."

"...the producer decided to only hire white and Asian actors to play those roles for the look of the thing? If so, I'm not sure it was the right decision - it's not something I've thought about - but I think it was a legitimate one to make."

The producer's decision was legitimate, in your view.

Now imagine the view of a black violinist who had to be head and shoulders above the concertmeister to play LAST CHAIR second fiddle.

But returning to the topic of the OP, Cohen has done a GREAT DISSERVIVE to the interests of those he represents, himself and reconciliation.

If you're hiring people to sit in chairs and play the roles of musicians in a film, race is a reasonable factor to consider. Musical ability presumably isn't, unless they're playing for real.

If you're hiring people to play music, then all you should be thinking about is musical ability.

Was my guess - that the reason you brough this up was because there was an orchestra hired to appear in or play for "An Officer and a Gentleman", and only whites or asians were hired - correct?

If so, was the film set in a time and place where a non white or asian musician would be a striking incongruity?


As to the OP, it depends. If the BCC is meant to be there to promote the interests of black congresspeople, and it's a social grouping, then it would have a perfectly good case for barring Mr Cohen on grounds of race, on grounds of freedom of assembly, as I understand it. If it's meant to be there to promote the interests of black people in congress, then it doesn't.

I think the latter is a far worthier goal.

The reason I brought it up was that Lou Gossett's role was originally intended for a white actor. It was the talk of the town when he landed it after intensive lobbying as it was truly a FIRST! The only reference I can find to that then much discussed, hot topic is a blurb in the NYT from July 25, 1982:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1D81439F936A15754C0A964948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

According to Mr. Hackford, the part of Sergeant Foley was originally written for a white actor. ''I looked and looked for someone for the role, and no one fit it,'' the director said. ''So I started to rethink it and go in a different direction. I thought it would be perfectly right to cast a black or a Latino in the part. Lou came in, and I knew in a second he was right. We didn't even have to change any of the lines. And by making the character black, we give the film a unique quality and a new story.''

Mr. Gossett characterized the present situation for black actors as ''terrible - no writers are writing for us, and no producers are producing. Eventually the problem will get so bad that the public will begin to think of us only in terms of a black film, with a black story. We should be represented in the overall fabric of America. They should show us in restaurants, in courtrooms, on the streets, in bars. They should show us as police and judges, because that's the way we really are.'' He paused for a moment, then added in his same calm tone: ''I sometimes think they should change the American flag from red, white and blue to tweed, because that's the way it looks when you look out over any audience.''

The story has been "whitewashed" a bit, but Hollywood being Hollywood that is certainly no surprise.

Please allow me to explain how this ALSO relates to black (particularly) classical musicians.

"If you're hiring people to sit in chairs and play the roles of musicians in a film, race is a reasonable factor to consider. Musical ability presumably isn't, unless they're playing for real."

This perpetuates the notion that black people do not pursue careers as orchestra and ensemble players.

"If you're hiring people to play music, then all you should be thinking about is musical ability."

THAT only works if you audition behind a screen. Wear sneakers. ;-) Race AND gender are the unspoken qualifications.

"If so, was the film set in a time and place where a non white or asian musician would be a striking incongruity?"

Does art imitate life or vice versa? ;-) The presence of people of colour is summarily ignored in many pursuits. Is a white woman playing jazz piano seen as a striking incongruity? Ever heard Diana Krall?


"As to the OP, it depends. If the BCC is meant to be there to promote the interests of black congresspeople, and it's a social grouping, then it would have a perfectly good case for barring Mr Cohen on grounds of race, on grounds of freedom of assembly, as I understand it. If it's meant to be there to promote the interests of black people in congress, then it doesn't."

Frankly, considering the damage Rep. Cohen did EVEN BEFORE GETTING ELECTED, trusting him will be a problem.

"I think the latter is a far worthier goal."

THIS is the crux of the issue, DIR. I mean no offense by stating this directly: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU OR WHAT YOU THINK. This is central to the issue of the dynamics of race and power, particularly in the U.S. Whites ASSUME the right of defining the terms and dictating the agenda and are offended by the "uppity" (read: you don't know your place) audacity of anyone who would dare say, "We will first dicuss this amongst ourselves and at this time do not require your input."

I do hope you will consider what I've written here with an open mind.

the cbc is an entity unto itself.

when a race of people has been as marginalized as black people have been, they deserve representation from a group of their own, the cbc. they neither want nor need the input from whites, and have said so.

i liken it to whites posting on a black message board. sometimes people just want to just talk among their own. listening respectfully is fine, but censoring what others say is not. i've seen that so often.

I understand wanting a "space of your own". I've been a member of the NAACP for 20+ years, and I am white. I don't feel that my input is ignored or disparaged, just different.

I have no beef with the CBC; nor do I have one with the Miss Black America folks, except that beauty contests are generally exploitive in and of themselves.

I think when Mr. Cohen sits back and thinks about it, he'll realize that just because it's discriminatory, not all discrimination is abhorrent. Boy & Girl Scouts. YMCA, YWCA, YWHA, Native American associations (and, up here, Native Corporations) are all inherently discriminatory, but not in a disparaging sense.

Here we go again!!! :eyes:

Maybe he should start a White caucus and invite all the members of the black caucus in.

And the whole point of a black caucus is that even when their members are present with the white caucus they're not really given their own voice on issues.

I'm sure there are ways he can voice his concerns and ideas for his black constituents to them without being in the Caucus.

many white people just don't get it!

Most of us don't get it, even though it's obvious.

"most" of the CBC should be black. Perhaps it should be a caucus "on" black people, instead of a caucus "of" black people. Then white or hispanic or asian progressives who wished to promote civil rights and fight racism would be welcome.

and what right to white people have to change the CBC to meet white sensibilities? Should black members of congress stop meeting to organize their own voice, history, tactics and legislation simply so they don't offend white people?

Do white people ever go that far out of their way to avoid offending black people?

Don't the black members of congress have as much right to define their own caucus as the members of every other caucus do?

As far as I know, no civil right laws or most labor laws, for that matter, apply within Congress, for good reason, so they can do what they want.

It always makes me uncomfortable when people are excluded based on their race, even when there is a laudable overall goal involved. I look for other ways of accomplishing the same goal. If there was a Congressional Caucus on Black Issues (or whatever name is better), while you would run a risk of diluting the level of commitment to civil right and other issues, you would also see the possibility of the group having more power to enact their proposals, due to their increased numbers.
If, over time, this new caucus was too ineffective due to the presence of the wrong races, I would expect that the Black members would go public and embarrass those guilty parties either into action or leaving the group. If, on the other hand, a number of committed progressive whites, Hispanics and Asians joined and invigorated the causus, so much the better.

that would prevent the two caucuses from coexisting. The purpose of the congressional membership organization is to determine the interests of the members and to develop strategies for pursuing those interests. I see no reason why white congressmen--regardless of the makeup of their district--should expect full participation in the process of determining the best interests of the african american community. White congressmen are welcome to aid in the work done towards achieving those goals, of course, and are free to agree or disagree with the agenda. But when it comes to setting the agenda, I don't see why they should simply expect input at each stage of the process. Just as congressmen from the northeast wouldn't necessarily be welcome in the congressional western congress, and just as republicans wouldn't be welcome in the house democratic congress.

black people, suddenly white people get very, very upset and uber-concerned about inclusiveness and "fairness."
:eyes:

"It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

How much you want to bet a repug would have been crying "reverse racism" over this?

So why not the CBC?

that is open to everyone doesn't mean every group that deals with racial issues/perspectives must be too.

The CBC has legitimate reasons for needing to be a black organization. The NAACP has a different size, focus, structure and history.

either, under the 14th amendment and federal law. Since congress is a public institution, I'm guessing he could raise a fuss. Or some rabble rouser on the right could.

I understand why there is a Black Caucus...but wouldn't it make sense to have a group that focuses on the issues unique to African American to allow others into its folds? TO help them understand the issues?

Cohen represents a predominantly black district, shouldn't he be allowed to represent them in the black caucus?

into a generic Congressional Caucus that Talks about Race. It's a Congressional Black Caucus so that black members of congress have their own place to organize, mentor each other, and not be second to the big white boys.

The Birth of the CBC

In January 1969, newly elected African American representatives of the 77th Congress joined six incumbents to form the "Democratic Select Committee. The Committee was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC was born in 1971. Founding Members were Representatives Shirley Chisholm, William Clay, George Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Charles Diggs, Augustus Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and DC Delegate Walter Fauntroy. Their goals were to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation, and to achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services. While the CBC has been primarily focused on the concerns of African Americans, the Caucus has also been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens.

I personally feel that the African American experience is unique, and as such, it should be represented by people who know that experience (first hand) in the CBC. Cohen seems to "get it," thankfully.

"While the CBC has been primarily focused on the concerns of African Americans, the Caucus has also been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens." this guy and the people he represents can not enjoy the benefits of him being a member of the cbc.

What particular benefits will his constituents be missing?

:shrug:

and the black caucus said no you can`t join..so the people in his district can not enjoy the benefits that the black caucus provide because the people voted for a white guy...makes perfect sense to me

The benefit of the CBC is for the members, not just their constituents. Everyone on the hill has black constituents. So by your reasoning everyone should be in the CBC. But then black members would have noplace to go to organize as black members, noplace to go to mentor each other and discuss their own issues and challenges as black members, and no place to go where white people weren't looking over their shoulders.

The caucuses are funded organizations of the House.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The reference to social club was indeed flippant, but it is one of the few organizations left that can discriminate. Anything with tax dollars supporting can not legally discriminate based on color, race, gender, etc. Then again Congress has a long history of exempting itself...

The CBC is a remnant of earlier days that should be disolved. The functions you claim it does are supportable equally well if not better via other methods. Its existence gives ammunition to those who oppose progress.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's better to include then exclude. Two wrongs don't make a right, ect...

Black members shouldn't organize as "black members", and white members shouldn't organize as "white members". This is a representative body of our country, not any race or races. It just sends the wrong message to exclude people.

There's nothing wrong with having a Black group, or a Danish group. DU has groups for everyone. But I'm free to comment in every group, as are you. I don't appreciate double standards. I understand this situation, I just don't agree with it. It seems petty, at best.

Why not? What about Native Americans organizing as Native Americans? Or, Irish Americans organizing as Irish Americans?

http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/

U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy, II (D-MA)

"I support the Irish National Caucus because it represents a compelling voice for fair employment, legal justice, and lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Irish National Caucus makes sure we in America don't forget the struggle of our Northern Irish brothers who live every day with danger and despair under political and economic conditions what we cannot allow to continue."

Former U.S. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD)

"The reputation of the Irish National Caucus is outstanding; your work to promote the interests of Northern Ireland through nonviolent means is well known both among Members of Congress as well as throughout the country's Irish-American community. As I said earlier, it will be an honor to be associated with your group and to work with you to help the people of Northern Ireland."

http://www.nativeamericancaucus.com/officers.shtml

You don't demonstrate much understanding of the situation at all, imo.

Members organize around any number of loci of expertise, interests, and experience, such as the 4H caucus, a caucus of Veterans, the women's caucus, etc. Why shouldn't African-American members organize around their shared experience in order to establish legislative priorities to address issues related to their experience and perspective? And why should a white person assume the right to determine those priorities, when they lack the experience and perspective of those directly affected? What a sense of entitlement!

nobody is excluded from the discussion of how to deal with racial issues, regardless of the color of their skin or their ideological bent.

But it is perfectly natural to exclude some people from determining what the priorities of African American congressmen are with respect to those issues.

It's like religion. Any christian denomination can assert their opinion on the divinity of christ, or what have you. But only catholics get to decide what the catholic position is. Catholics, likewise, are excluded from the determination of baptist doctrine. They can discuss baptist doctrine, but they aren't invited to the discussions that determine that doctrine.

The end result of your argument is that african americans have no right to ever meet to discuss african american issues without accepting white input. That's messed up, in my opinion :)

Your last line troubles me, and I think it's a jump. There is nothing to prevent anyone from talking about any issue anywhere. African Americans are just as free to talk about issues that are close to them as you or I.

As far as doing it without white input-that seems to be a bit abrasive. These are congressmen and women. Their decisions effect all Americans, not just African Americans. They can certainly talk, associate, and do what they like with who they like within the framework of an individual. But as an official group of congress, the elected body of the people, and as representatives of districts that surely contain more then just African Americans, is seems patently absurd to form a group whose governing criteria for entry is race. As an official group of Congress.

It's a step backward, in my opinion. Look at one of the greatest humans to ever live-Martin Luther King. In the spirit of Thoreau and the tradition of Gandhi, he led a non-violent resistance against centuries of hate and oppression. He was inclusive of all people that supported his cause, not just the ones that shared the color of his skin.

In forming a caucus that deals with the issues of African Americans, it makes sense that a representative of a district that has a majority of African Americans would want to join. If their goal is to help African Americans-who may have unique issues- why wouldn't they want this person to join?

Why does it matter in 2007 what color someone's skin is? IN the spirit of equality, it really shouldn't. If we're all working together, to make this the best country we can, this is an antiquated exclusionary measure that has no place in our governing body.

Your thoughts on Catholics and religions are noted. Of course, in America, under the 14th amendment, we are all entitled to the equal protection of the laws. And just as Catholics are the only ones allowed to decide Catholic law, only Americans are allowed to create American laws. There is no classification or preference give to a race of Americans.

As far as being able to determine what the priorities of an African American congressman are-that is up to the individual congressman and his district. There is no group think. The caucus exists to share ideas and get a better understanding of the issues that face their constituents. Or at least it purports to be.

Imagine a white person in that city who is sincerely and honestly concerned about the injustice of the city's minority community. One day he walks into a restaurant downtown, and in a corner of that restaurant he sees a group of African Americans. They are discussing the situation and debating the proper response to the system of injustice. Now, imagine this white person walks over to the group and announces, as he slides into the booth: "I, too, am concerned about the racism in this community. Therefore, I have decided to join your group. This is what I think about this situation ..."

I would consider such behavior extremely obnoxious. It would seem perfectly appropriate (perhaps superhumanly patient and understanding) if someone in that group were to say: "We appreciate that you support our goals, and we'll be happy to have your support when we rally at city hall next week. But this meeting is about drawing on our perspective to formulate OUR response, and while you're welcome to support, discuss, or disagree with our response, you aren't entitled to tell us what it should be. There are a number of other groups that you can join, groups that support the same cause we do, but from a slightly different angle. I'm a member of several of those groups myself, and I hope to see you at the meetings."

Our white friend, at this point, should realize that he made a huge mistake by inviting himself into a discussion which is outside the scope of his expertise and understanding.

I would consider our white friend no longer a friend if, instead, he were to say:

"That's racist! You should not exclude me just because I'm white! Those other forums are not good enough for me. I demand the right to participate in every single conversation about race that takes place!

"Although it is true that these issues affect you to a much higher degree than they affect me, and although I do not share your experience being on the short end of society's systematic racism, I reject that you have any need to discuss such issues without my input or influence.

"It is not enough for me to listen to your conclusions about how racism affects you; I want to help you come to those conclusions.

"It is not enough for me to help you meet your goals; I want to help determine your goals for you."

That would be very bad form indeed.

Since you are willing to discuss this with an open mind, I want to do address several of the points you raised individually.


Of course MLK was inclusive. So are the members of the CBC. The fact that they have one organization which gives them the opportunity to, without input from others who don't share their experiences and expertise in the matter, discuss, prioritize, and strategize responses to racial issues does not mean that they don't also engage outside voices in other situations. There is room for both approaches. Indeed, both approaches are essential. As has been pointed out elsewhere, no civil rights movement would succeed without allies from outside the community, but neither would any civil rights movement succeed without those who are disproportionately affected by such injustices having an outlet for discussing those issues without catering to the influence and input of those who don't share the experience.

MLK was inclusive, but the early civil rights movement also relied on organizations that were all black in membership, like the Women's Political Council, an organization of black professional women, which was essential in organizing the montgomery bus boycott. The fact that MLK invited the white community to participate in the civil rights cause doesn't mean that every council or strategy meeting he had included white participants, nor should it have.



It makes sense that such a representative would want to hear what the CBC has to say, would want to engage the CBC and align himself with their cause, but membership is hardly an automatic result.



Because there are other ways that he can help the cause without diluting the unique power of the CBC, which lies, in part, in its ability to provide a collective black voice in congress.

The CBC does not prevent or restrict or discourage anybody else from participating in important discussions about race and about civil and human rights. Indeed, the CBC engages outsiders. Both approaches have their place, and to simply have one forum in which the community is self contained in no way implies an unwillingness to work with or to accept and engage the ideas of others, such as Mr. Cohen.



Perhaps it's true that it shouldn't matter, but it isn't true that it doesn't. Race still matters, and the CBC isn't going to change that by admitting a white member. If race didn't matter, there wouldn't be a need for a CBC or for a discussion of racial issues. But since it still does, there is a need for those disproportionately affected to hash such issues out, as one part of the larger discussion of these issues.



The CBC does not make policy, any more than any other congressional membership organization does. Although they are the most consistently progressive force in the U.S. congress, their power is very much limited, as could be seen by the lonely but passionate attempt to challenge the results of the 2000 election. And the CBC does not, by themselves, make law any more than the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops does.

It is essential that those who are disproportionately affected by injustice have the opportunity to discuss, within a community of shared expertise and experience, the strategies and priorities of reacting to that injustice. Again, that doesn't mean that the opinions and assistance of others isn't accepted and even valued. Indeed, outside help is essential. But so is the understanding, by those same allies, that their open mind and their willingness to help does not give them the right to participate in every single conversation that takes place about the subject. No white man, however well-intentioned and open-minded and enlightened and willing to help, can simply assume the right to participate in every conversation about race.

are ALL THAT and a bag o' chips!!! :yourock:

White privilege and assumptions of superiority (conscious or otherwise) are the elephants in the living room throughout this thread.

I appreciate that. And back at ya :)

White privilege and assumptions of superiority (conscious or otherwise) are the elephants in the living room throughout this thread.
So true ...

IN short, your arguments are persuasive.

One "Agree to disagree" point- I don't think that any particular group(in this case white) need to be a part of every discussion on race. My objection overall is that the CBC is a congressional group, and should be more inclusive. Sort of a narrowly tailored opinion, limited to groups in COngress.

However, your points about their role in formulating policy were excellent.


Rock on.

but kudos to the CBC for telling him to take a flying leap.

I could be wrong, of course, but it seems like he is aware the fault is his, for having invited himself unduly, and putting them on the spot was a matter of carelessness (in making the promise in the first place, thus "inviting" himself to the party) rather than bad intention:

Cohen remains hopeful, though, that he can forge relationships with black members in other ways.

"When I saw the reticence, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand my motives. Politically, it was the right thing to do," he said. "There are other ways to gain fellowship with people I respect."

I won't second guess his motives although the bull-in-the-china-shop execution shows an incredible lack of sensitivity. Rather than FIRST approaching the CBC to privately sound them out on the idea, he makes a public announcement using THEM as a campaign tool, which by its very nature puts the CBC on the hot seat. It was all about him. Things that make ya go hmmm... :freak:

going to join the CBC, since he was elected from a majority Black district. It might have helped him to get elected (I don't know what his margin of victory was.) If it helped him beat an R, and he accepts his rejection by the CBC with some class, then I am not sure that what he did was wrong.

It wasn't wrong, per se. It was just self-serving and stupid.

A white candidate using the CBC as a political tool certainly shows a poor understanding of the CBC, its function and the dynamics of power vis-a-vis race. "Accepting his rejection with class" has resulted in exposing this august and history-making body to unnecessary disapprobation. Did he simply ASSUME during the campaign that he would be accepted? Did it never occur to him what the repercussions would be if he were not? Why did he drag THEM into his campaign in such a way? Why not pledge to work closely with them rather than demanding membership? The damage is done.

Harold Jr's brother, Jake, pulled Lieberman and ran against Cohen as an "Independent Democrat" after losing in the primary. The city and county mayors (both black democrats) endorsed Cohen, but Harold Jr and Sr endorsed Jake (the Fords are a major political power here in Memphis for those that don't know). Although Cohen ended up winning in a landslide, there was concern that the Ford name alone would split the Democratic vote and let the Republican candidate sneak in. It was a pretty nasty campaign with the Ford family (Harold Jr included) saying that Cohen was too liberal for Memphis because of his support for legalizing marijuana and same sex civil unions. Ford was even quoted as saying that he hoped Cohen's support of civil unions "wasn't for personal reasons."

It's a particularly insidious component of white privilege and unconscious racism for a white person to simply assume that the CBC would welcome the input and assistance of a white man. He absolutely should have approached the CBC privately.

I only meant that I don't think he intended this to be what it has (because of his failure to approach it in the appropriate manner you described) become--another bullshit example for the right-wing to drudge up about "reverse racism." I think (hope) that is an UNintended consequence. Either way, it appears to be a real consequence, and one that would have been avoided if he'd approached the matter with some sensitivity.

But that aside, yeah, it was all about him. He was clueless.

There are PAGES of bilge on Google but I did find this:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/209/209_beneath_the_spin_want_to_be_black_secours.html

Several years ago, at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban South Africa, there were hundreds of caucuses formed throughout the two weeks and anyone in attendance would be hard pressed to deny the power harnessed when those with common histories and experiences joined forces. It was palpable.

As the only non-black member of an NGO delegation, it was challenging not to resist and resent being excluded from caucuses where those who were ‘classified as white’ were not invited. But very quickly, it became evident that the role required for some of us was not one of leadership, but of forming alliances and learning how to become a trusted ally. The ultimate challenge was serving, rather than driving, the agenda. A novel concept for someone accustomed to steering the wheel.

Dr. Ray Winbush, Director of the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University in Baltimore admires Cohen for his public service and says: “Frankly, it is surprising and disappointing that Steve isn’t more sensitive, especially with his being Jewish. Of all people, he (Cohen) should understand the importance of ethnic caucuses where strategies can be formed. Creating allies and solidifying relationships in Washington with members of the CBC is more important and respectful than requiring membership.”

And so now it seems that someone at the Congressional Black Caucus will draw the short straw and have to take Mr. Cohen to lunch and gently ‘break it down’ for him and explain why perhaps it is inappropriate that he be admitted to the CBC and how many people of color might find his assertion and insistence offensive. Not a pleasant task when you consider that many of us liberal white folks don’t like being told we aren’t ‘allowed’ and don’t take kindly to exclusion.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cohen, requesting that he become a member of the Black Caucus only raises questions as to his ability to truly understand the needs of those he represents and what their struggles are. If he doesn’t grasp the value of the Congressional Black Caucus as a Black organization and instead allows his desire to be ‘the exception’ to override his good judgment, he may raise more than eyebrows on Capitol Hill.

Molly Secours is a writer/filmmaker/speaker and frequent co-host on “Behind The Headlines” and “FreeStyle” on 88.1 WFSK in Nashville. She can be reached at www.myspace.com/mollysecours or www.mollysecours.com.

:)

You're right. I also thought you made the point very well in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=17258&mesg_id=27926

A white candidate using the CBC as a political tool certainly shows a poor understanding of the CBC, its function and the dynamics of power vis-a-vis race. "Accepting his rejection with class" has resulted in exposing this august and history-making body to unnecessary disapprobation. Did he simply ASSUME during the campaign that he would be accepted? Did it never occur to him what the repercussions would be if he were not? Why did he drag THEM into his campaign in such a way? Why not pledge to work closely with them rather than demanding membership? The damage is done.

Thanks for posting that article and the links.

for that alone.

American consituencies. Its a fair question. Are the members of the CBC the only ones who work for the benefit of African Americans.

IMO its a throwback that needs to go away for obvious reasons

It's for Black members of Congress regardless of who their constituents are. After all, everyone has black constituents, and everyone has white constituents.

When will society hit the 'reset' button, drop the past, and EVERYBODY try to get along?
:(

But as long as racism exists, and as long as racism is quietly accepted and promoted black members of congress need a place where they can organize themselves, discuss among themselves, mentor their own new members, and work for themselves to break racial barriers.

Having white people there defeats a lot of the purpose.

Ultimately, I have no solution. I don't even know what to think. I'm just posting my observations.

There are two forms of racism. Racism such as the KKK who inspire only violence and maliciousness.

There's also good racism that does good things for only people meeting the right credentials.

But at what point do we say we are equal? At what point can we hit the reset button and work together?

Can we have both "mixed" clubs and ____-only (insert color choice in the blank) clubs?

If there was a "Miss White America" pageant, that would piss a lot of people off. Mind you, pageants also allow boob jobs and other things so the whole concept is ridiculous anyway... never mind being sexist, but they do have "Mr. ____" contests as well. So why not a "Best looking human of them all" contest? And then somebody will have something to say about that as well.

Can we all give up our personal demons, and every one of us has our own demons we battle each day.

The dream is: If we all were treated equal by one another, we wouldn't need any ____-centric groups. We're all human, all equal, and all moving together. It just wouldn't make a difference whose skin color was whatever color, and every other injustice imaginable. Because it wouldn't make a difference, that's why the ____-centric clubs become redundant too, and even incite racism because people are showing they prefer to remain separated than to work together.

The reality is: Those groups need to remain as they are because of viciousness on the part of some whites.

The other reality is: The few who hit the 'reset' button are more likely to die of a hate crime, often by the hand of whites but sometimes by the hand of blacks (or any other color possible). :( Some people do try to transcend to the ultimate and coolest level, hence the creation of multi-ethnic children. They're just as human. If we all stuck with the "___-only groups must exist", nobody from other groups would be allowed in and the multi-ethnic results would never be made!

It took how long before multi-"racial" marriages to be accepted? And even then it's hardly the case; violence against multi-"racial" couples still exist and it's damn atrocious and barbaric. (never mind the name society bestows, "multi-racial". That alone suggests something is "wrong", which is the furthest from the truth.)

But I digress.

The ultimate solution is to hit the reset button, get along, and get going again. Nobody likes to start over. From a failed relationship, to bankruptcy, to a job loss, you name it. But people have to move on or drown in a pool of their own tears or drown everybody else they can find who they think is the cause of a problem (e.g. Hitler scapegoating the Jews.)

So how do people get along?

Can people forgive and get along?

Are we all slaves to our past, regardless of color? Thousands if not millions of years of blood and abuse on our collective hands.

When do we ALL become progressive and strive to work with one another? THAT was MLK's message to every human on this planet. (A fictional TV character, Mike Stivic, the liberal 20-something character from "All in the Family" (1971-1979, CBS) frequently made the same argument to Archie - why do we all have to base decisions. label, and judgments based on color?) We're all human. Why can't we deal with each other equally? When do we let the past go?

And at the rate it's going, we will all be dead from bloody genocide -- because nobody wants to listen or truly be progressive; it's all or nothing - literally. In which case MLK's dream for true peace between men of all colors will NEVER be accomplished. We all have to work together and we ALL have to drop the pretenses of ____-only clubs and move forward. Everybody. Together. One species. No exceptions. Otherwise we haven't learned a thing. And that goes double for hate groups like the KKK. The violence and hate has got to stop. And they're the ones who won't are least likely to change under any circumstances. :(

Also, how does having a white person there defeat the purpose of ending racism?

The situation is no different if whites were the minority. We all have got to work together and stop classifying people of different skin colors as "races" amongst everything else. We do ourselves more harm than good. We essentially segregate ourselves in the name of ending segregation.

In short, this entire argument right down to the OP's news article and the events that spawned it are one facet that humanity will never want to change, despite the handful of a few who are bold enough to make the attempt to get the species to grow up by hitting their own personal 'reset buttons' and going on from there. And there are far more incidents of hostile white-only groups that prove the same point as well.

I'll work for a positive future, but I also understand that it won't happen within my lifetime. I have a friend who works at a job placement center. She's white. She has a black coworker. The black person says it's okay to make racist remarks against white people because she's black. I don't see how that's conducive to MLK's dream either, but what do I know? I'll never understand people in general. (I used to believe that the black worker was correct. I now believe that racism by anybody by any color is wrong. Period. And self-segregating does nobody any good. And I am probably wrong in that as well because I haven't seen the whole picture. I tend to dream a lot.)

Additionally, how much in reparations as we, white people, can give? I'll give what it takes. Anything. But we've all got to start over at some point.

Yes, having white member of congress as allies helps, but you they can be allies without denying the black members of congress a place to organize. In fact, denying the black members of congress a place to organize would state pretty clearly that the "allies" aren't truly allies at all.

Yes, there can be both separate and mixed "clubs" but the arguments here seem to indicate that every "club" should be mixed. The problem there is that mixed "clubs" are essentially white clubs. When white people are the majority, have the powers, wrote the rules, control the budgets, get the attention, and take the microphone any "club" becomes a white "club."

So have a mixed caucus. But don't get rid of the CBC to do it.

Having a white person there defeats the purpose of the CBC because to admit one white person means there are rules for admitting more white people. And white people will join for self-serving purposes. It's idiocy to pretend that people are entirely altruistic, especially politicians. If white people could join, everyone who has to appeal to a black constituency for votes would feel they have to join. A whole lot of racists would become members so they could claim they aren't racists. But then you'd have racists in the CDC.

Once that happens, what kind of place is that to organize a strategy against racism?

politico dot com launches their new "publication" with a hot-button wedge issue. How predictable.

What part of:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

does this nation not get?

You don't end racism by doing everything in the big hall where all the white guys are in charge. Sometimes you have to organize and have your own leaders.

if we engage in a process which makes a determination about a person based solely on the color of their skin. It's destroying a principle in order to save it. In this case the goal is ending racism and extending opportunity equally to all in America, but it is supposedly being done by excluding individuals. I don't even know if there should be a black caucus or a hispanic caucus or any other caucus dependent upon a person's unchosen ethnicity.

I think people have forgotten the problem and inherit inequity of limiting a person based on something they cannot choose. This nation needs to never forget its history and why it was so troubled.

about women's rights? Or White People should take over discussions about the rights of Indiginous People?

If white people are allowed to join the CBC it stops being a CBC. It becomes a place to talk about race. And that becomes just a cover for anyone who's a racist. "I can't be a racist. I'm a member of the former CBC." Where will Black members of congress go to organize among themselves at that point?

based on race. That sounds pretty reasonable, don't you think so?

then the minority never really has their own voice. This is where they go to develop their own voice.

I'm sorry you don't see that. :eyes:

As you said in another post, we can't forget our history, and the history of the congressional body has given groups like the CBC ample reason to believe that, if the interests of minorities are to be protected, then minorities must organize amongst themselves.

The majority usually seems to think it's done enough.

or are doing enough, or are moving fast enough, and of course their perspective on the issues is the only legitimate one so why shouldn't they be able to come in and take over the agenda and the discussion...

x(

n/t

For one thing, it's not as though members of the CBC are refusing to work with anyone else. For another, it would do their constituents no good to pretend that no one ever makes decisions based on race. Because white people are the majority, they don't have struggles that the minority do, so there's no valid reason for them to group up and exclude minorities except to further marginalize them. Because black people are the minority who have been struggling with racism, they do have a valid reason to group together. They aren't excluding white people to marginalize them. As the minority, they can't. If they allow white people, they will soon become a minority again, in their own group. There is no reason for the majority to feel threatened and cry racism, and because racism isn't the motivating factor, it's ludicrous to do so.

If is *not* the case that the only two options are "not being involved in" and "taking over".

I think that judging the worth of a comment on women's rights, indigenous people or anything else by who makes it is a mistake - one should look at it purely on its own merits.

I think that one's views are a far better membership criterion than the colour of one's skin for a group dedicated to opposing anti-black discrimination ("opposing racial discrimination" appears not to be accurate).

Once the doors are open so white people can join, many will. The organization is guaranteed to become majority white (maybe vastly majority white) very quickly. And then white people have "taken over" whether that was the intent or not.

The purpose of the CBC was to give the black members of congress a place to organize their vision, strategy and legislative goals. But the important point is that it is for THEM to organize. Allowing other people in takes that away from them.

of those who've been the targets of bigotry. At least all of the Democratic Party should be trying this, if not even the Republicans.

Not everything can be done by the government, but any sort of inequity caused by law should be addressed.

I think the members of Congress ought to also be at the forefront of societal changes as well, but those are things which cannot be legislated. We have to start charities to help all children in America have a fair shot at life, but not just that, adults as well. We need to increase the education and work skills of people so that they will be able to compete better. The sad part here is that we cannot give people time, and that means we as a society must make these changes as quickly as possible. Every day of waiting is a day more of unjust treatment for those targeted, and another day that we cannot say we are working towards a more perfect union.

Everyone should be concerned with racism and the concerns of the black community. But that doesn't mean that black members of congress don't have a need to speak and organize among themselves. White people don't have a right to dominate every discussion, and that's what happens if black people can't organize themselves and present a coordinated front.

It's not as simply as the wishfull thinking that all white legislators care equally about race and should be involved in every conversation. Minorities need to have rights too, and one of those rights needs to be the right to organize themselves in how they approach and deal with the majority.

Being artificially colorblind just makes it easier for racists to get away with racism. If you're colorblind but they're not then you'll never see what they're doing and why.

I love when Colbert speaks on this issue: "I'm colorblind. I don't see race. Are you black?" :rofl:

If you're colorblind but they're not then you'll never see what they're doing and why. :thumbsup:

and the only way we will change that is by treating everyone equally. That doesn't eliminate the extreme poverty which has been caused by years and years of racism stealing chances in life, but that's something we as a society must change, it's something which cannot be forced, because we cannot truly know what is in the hearts of everyone in America. We must open the eyes of the American people to the inequity in our society, but when it comes to government, the current problem stems from societal inequity.

It isn't just about people who are black, but anyone in any way discriminated against by an arbitrary attribute which changes nothing about their worth as human beings and is not chosen.

We did not get to choose to be born into a world with these horrible inequities, but it is our choice as to whether they continue. By pushing this responsibility for change off on those who've been the targets of racism, we as a people deny our responsibility and our duty to change this country.

Racism and bigotry in general should not just be a problem for those affected by it, but everyone in America. We must all make it our business, because it reflects on our society.

If everyone's expected to hold their eyes closed, the person who cheats and peeks will always win. If everyone is expected to be colorblind, the racists will always win.

You don't fight racism by ignoring race. If you do, you only succeed in ignoring racism.

Yeah, that'll work. That's naive.

We did not get to choose to be born into a world with these horrible inequities, but it is our choice as to whether they continue. By pushing this responsibility for change off on those who've been the targets of racism, we as a people deny our responsibility and our duty to change this country.
That seems to be exactly what your argument (that we make racism disappear by pretending race doesn't matter) relies on.

A corroloary to the argument you appear to be making is that racism would disappear if only black people didn't worry so much about being black. That's beyond naive, it's also offensive.

If only groups like the CBC would pretend that the color of their skin meant nothing, either in how they see themselves or in how others see or treat them, then racism would go away? Yeah. Right.

As long as race matters in this country, a group like the CBC will have a legitimate interest in determining, for themselves, how they, as minorities, should attempt to address the ramifications.

That's why there's still a group devoted to advancing character over color.

The people affected by racism shouldn't be the only ones trying to stop it.

"It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Probably something he should have thought of before making the promise in the first place, but it's good of him to recognize that now.

Too many questions and too many sensibilities at stake.

It's a shame the question had to come up at all.

Welcome to DU, DemSinceBirth! :hi:

One, he had too know he'd be causing a stir by trying to join in the first place.
and two, having to reconsider and look at the ramifications of the original purpose of the group in contrast to today.

I won't say anyone's right or wrong here, just that there's so much gray in this issue that it would take someone with a lot more time and a lot more brainpower than I have to dissect the many different ramifications of the questions that should be asked in regarding this situation.

(sorry for the tap dance!)

...the honky just can't have a membership card.

:evilgrin:

Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, yes.

But if you ask to join their caucus and are rejected, what can you do?

Continue leaving the toilet seat up, I suppose.

especially in this case, where the purpose of the organization is agenda-oriented--determining critical priorities and appropriate strategies for addressing african american issues. It's certainly reasonable and laudable for there to be means of organizing whereby all voices can weigh in on such a subject. But it's also reasonable (essential, even) for those most directly effected to have an organizational tool at which they can hammer out their own priorities, without requiring, requesting, or accepting unsolicited input from others--however well meaning--who share the groups general objectives.

I think it's the same thing with any other issue that affects one group of people disproportionately, whether it's women's rights (it is great that some feminist organizations allow men to join, thus illustrating their support for the cause and participating in the dialogue that searches for solutions, but it's also essential that women be able to gather apart from men to determine their own priorities in addressing such issues; men can support/question/critique the agenda, but setting it seems a different story) or gay rights (gay-straight alliances are a great thing, but at the same time, those outside the glbt communities ought not assume the right to participate in all debates and discussions about the most important and effective steps to advance the cause of gay rights, whether invited or not). Supporting the cause is important, but so is deferring to the expertise and experience of those for whom the stakes are much more real and much more immediate.

If the purpose is support/camaraderie/mentorship for the representatives themselves, that is one consideration.

If the purpose is objectives around legislation and the represented, that is another.

But sadly, I hadn't. I'm black woman and I don't care what colour someone is, black, white, polka dotted, striped, polyester or zippered with green seersucker ribbon covered buttons, this is completely wrong and hypocritical to the n'th degree. If this man is working for his district and the Caucus addresses the issues his constituents face on a daily basis, then Damn it, he needs to be a member and dman the colour or hue of his skin, for crying out loud!!

blacks they should get over slavery... yeah, invite him in, too; he's got blacks in his district. :eyes:

As a black woman, I don't care what colour someone is IF THEY ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE LEIVES OF ANY DISADVANTAGED GROUP IN THEIR DISTRICT! Obviously, the knothead congressman who you're referring to couldn't give a rusty fart about people like me. Why don't make sure you think about things before you make asinine comments. I would feel the same what about anyone who was working to improve the lives of the undervalued and disadvantaged. I don't care what some people like to say regarding racism is something that black folks can't commit---BULLSHIT. This is the same mindset as insular country clubs and good ole boy networks that work to keep people of colour and women out of their groups.

before complaining about not being invited to join the group.

What has his stunning insensitivity shown to anyone with eyes to see? ;-) Inquiring minds want to know. :evilgrin:

What if the Congressional Women Caucus refuse to allow a men to join?? It is for WOMEN only!!! To deal with women issues. Now switch the name back to Congressional Black Caucus... would that make a difference?? It is not like the CBC is refusing to hear Cohen's concern. It is their caucus and they could accept anyone they like. :shrug: :shrug:

that the white member represents a largely black constituency.

I wonder who's great idea was to SEGREGATE and KILL based on race in the first place. Cry me a river.

The CBC works for ALL Americans regardless, including Mr Cohen's African American constituency. It is ludicrous to think that the CBC's decision is racist like some want to point out. This is starting to look a lot like that OBAMA-MADRASSAS linked to HILLARY's Campaign, a way to portray Democrats as RACISTS.

You are talking about EXCLUSION based on RACE when there's even doubts (even here in DU) about an African American running for PRESIDENT?? Please...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you really think that Caucasians invented that idea?

be allowed. Regardless of race or party affiliation.

In many ways, it's the most liberal caucus in Congress.

without inserting themselves against the will of the CBC and insisting their direct input be included. It's not as though they don't already have plenty of input in Congress as a majority. I support their goals, and I still think they have the right to remain an exclusive group in addition to being members of Congress as a whole

I'm actually a bit ashamed to hear of the news.

I agree 101%!! I'm a black woman and that's the ifrst thing I thought of when I read that post.

A congressional black caucus which has no criteria for membership would eventually become a meaningless token.

"I'm sensitive to the plight of those people! Why, I'm a member of the CBC! They need estate tax elimination and corporate welfare, just like us white folks!"

If an official's constituents are 40% or more African-American, I say they should be invited, regardless of their own ethnicity.

:argh:

And how much were you bettin anyway? I'll give you my paypal account so you can conveniently deposit my funds.

... the really bad analogy in this debate is the one that compares organizations for blacks to groups with "whites only" membership criteria. As I was telling the other guy...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=17258&mesg_id=43710

and nobody cares. On the other hand, whites don't have an official, out-in-the-open, CWC.

Your analogy is a bad one. The CBC being allowed to exist as it is w/o harrassment by the media in this case is the result of the CBC and related "black exclusivity" being an acceptable double standard. "White exclusivity" and "male exclusivity" is not allowed to exist w/o harrassment - see Augusta National Golf Club. That's the double standard.

Women have exclusive bathrooms. Men have exclusive bathrooms too. No double standard there.

It is what it is. To deny this is ignorant and dishonest. Double standards like this are OK and important in our society. Don't apologize or make excuses or offer bad metaphors to make up for it. Instead, force the unwashed to learn it, live it, and love it.

And they typically ask those who wish to join for proof of some amount of the relevant ancestry.

That's identical to the membership criteria for black ethnic organizations such as the CBC. All you need is one black ancestor. All the rest of your ancestors can be white.

Whites-only groups, however, operate on the opposite prinicpal: they exclude anyone with any degree of black ancestry, even if most of their ancestors are white.

"Black" is defined very broadly; "white" is defined very narrowly. Black is an inclusive designation, whereas white is an exclusive designation.

Only when white and black are defined according to the same rules will you then possibly have the ghost of a point. But when that happens, the CBC will no longer have a reason for existing, so that ghost of a point will be moot.

It is what it is. To deny this is ignorant and dishonest. Double standards like this are OK and important in our society. Don't apologize or make excuses or offer bad metaphors to make up for it. Instead, force the unwashed to learn it, live it, and love it.

Do you spend this much time bitching about the Saint Andrew's Society and their Scottish ancestor requirement? Somehow, I doubt it.

Lots of groups organize to promote their own agenda. Doesn't anybody think male senators would change the dynamics of the Senate Women??

http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=267563

God I hate this shit.

If the racists here had their way and were able to kill the Congressional Black Caucus, the other caucuses would be next until congress was once again nothing but the corporate sponsored white men's club on the hill.

That's just plain false. There's no racial requirement for joining congress. Are there economic inequalities in this country? Of course. But to allow economic and racial inequalities as rationale for racism against groups perceived to be "dominant" is just wrong. Congress itself does not bar blacks. CBC bars whites. CBC is in the wrong. Being a member of a disadvantaged group doesn't give one the right to behave unjustly towards other groups. Sorry.

Or history.

There may not be a rule or requirement saying people have to be white, but there is racism at every step of campaigning, fund raising, and politicking. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

There is only one black senator. Do you think that happens accidentally?

We've never had a woman Speaker of the House before, and women are severely underrepresented. Do you think there's no sexism either?

A literalist view, insisting that no prejudice is there unless it's explicit, serves nobody but the bigots.

or is that what they think they're trying to prevent themselves from doing?

I swear some causes only know how to be the underdog, which is the greatest detrement to the cause itself.

They're giving themselves a place to organize themselves. They give up nothing by being members, but often gain coherent strategies and a unified presence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

trying to portray Democrats as RACIST.

WE heard about things like this one this week. What about the Obama being schooled in Maddrassa's linked to Hillary Clinton's campaign. This was an effort to scare Islamophobes and to portray all Democrats as RACISTS. DON'T HELP THE GOP!!!

x(

And so many people here who never post against actual racism are showing up here again to snipe at the people who really do work against racism.

It doesn't look right to me. They appear to be prejudiced against white people.

It matters what it is, and what they really do. Instead of jumping to conclusions how about finding out why they exist and what they accomplish?

Thanks for the further explanations on why the CBC was created.

we have. Let them play by their rules.

hum

either because they have no clue what they're talking about, or because they're really not at progressive as they try to present themselves to be.
x(

they would attempt to derail the whole thing. Same if they tried to work with women. They don't get it, have no idea what it;s truly like to be an outsider, so they try and tell you it's not a big deal.
anyone who is not a white man and has attended business meetings will telll you: most white men function well in groups:
with other white men. the rest of us get treated a bit different, if we are acknkowleged at all, and it's so pervasive, most people don;t even think about or notice it.

There is a valid need for caucuses, and they all have a right to determine their own membership.

As a feminist I accept that there are some feminist organizations that are, and should be, all women. I don't intrude and I don't take it personally. If I really want to help I will, but throwing my injured majority pride around wouldn't help.

i love that, Tom. And all your posts in this thread.
I said so little because so little was needed after yours!
Hope you are well! :hug:

ThomCat has been BRILLIANT in GETTING TO THE POINT! I, for one, am in awe at his patience and persistence in clarifying the REAL ISSUES. I am overwhelmed with GRATITUDE for his participation in this thread, being an o' lady whose patience over the decades has worn very thin.

:applause:

ThomCat, YOU ROCK DA HOUSE!!!

:applause:

:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

and shares the sentiment!

I think white men and women with demonstrated records for championing civil rights could work well in it and increase its power much sooner than elections would. But then, I can see them staying together in a Congress that is mostly white.

They have a right to decide who gets to join and represent their own community.

A white guy can't make those decisions himself.

congressional BLACK caucus means just that!

There will be people who cry reverse racism. They're wrong, especially in the case of the CBC. Black people are still the minority in congress. I have no problem with their decision to remain exclusive, because if they allow white members to start joining, then they run the risk of becoming a minority in their own group, just as they are for Congress as a whole. By claiming they don't have the right, it's essentially telling them they have to stick to always being the minority in all situations, and always have to include the input of white members on an issue those white members don't directly deal with. That's ludicrous. I think Rep. Cohen's intentions were good, but I think it was the right thing for him to do to back off, and it seems he did so graciously. I think the wishes of the CBC should be respected on this.

Now that's what I'm talkin'bout, my man! ;-)

If it was the other way around, there'd be a big stink. This way it's no big deal. That's just the way it is, and it's not going to change.

The right wing rags and Limbaugh will be up in arms, but no legitimate media will even run it. As they shouldn't. We all know the rules of the game by now.

Rush Limbaugh is right and the media is too liberal to cover it?

I do believe the lack of "media" coverage is related to a double standard. But the double standard has been around for awhile and is generally accepted by the county.

The right wing rags and Limbaugh will use it as best they can to generate "outrage" and website subscriptions, but the rest of the world won't give a shit. I don't.

Pfft.

since they wouldn't let Babe Ruth into the Negro League Hall of Fame.

Many years ago I was in Charleston SC for a conference on historic preservation and there was a group there to discuss minority issues in Hist. Pres. in SC. I was interested in hearing about their issues and wanted to attend. I went to the meeting room and before long I could tell there was a little bit of a stir. I was surprised at first that it had to do with my being there and my white entitlement subconscious was trying to override but as they asked me why I wanted to be there I told them I was interested in listening and learning and after a brief discussion, they let me stay. I'm happy I got to stay because I got to hear things I would not have heard in VA about issues I didn't have a window on but was interested and concerned about. I am also happy they had that discussion even though I was present. I also have a much better understanding now that it was an important forum--important enough to protect its sanctity so that the needed discussions could take place. In this instance, they balanced that sanctity with their discomfort at excluding an individual (and one of no account). I do understand the need for sanctuary for discussion of shared concerns and setting goals and agreeing on agendas. THEN, you go out and try to work with everybody.

It must have been a real eye-opener. Great that you had that experience.

The Congressional Black Caucus is no different from any other ethnicity-based organization: some minimal amount of a particular ancestry is enough to get you in. Nothing odd about that. If this were an organization for Germans, or Italians, or Scots, nobody would be bitching about this at all.

You know, I bet that quite a few of the white members of Congress could indeed find grounds to join the CBC, if they'd only invest a little time in researching their own genealogical records. So why don't they, if being "excluded" from the CBC bothers them that much?

Of course, when a white person does discover a black ancestor or two, he immediately ceases to be "white" in the American eugenics sense of the word. To call oneself "white" is quite literally to make a claim of being free of black ancestry. So you can see how it might seem sort of odd -- opening membership in a black organization to Persons Who Explicitly Deny Having Any Amount Of Black Ancestry Whatsoever.

Prosit! :toast:

They will want to keep it a secret. Keep it on the down lo. :)

And although that cause historically has a lot to do with race, i don't think race as such is the cause.