"Reverse racism" believing DUers can now join up with the head bigot!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6371518,00.html

"``If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses,'' said Tancredo, who is scheduled to pitch his long-shot presidential bid this weekend in New Hampshire.

One caucus member dismissed Tancredo's comments as sour grapes from a dethroned Republican - who also happens to be running for president.

``This story is really about a member of the minority party using intolerance to advance his presidential campaign,'' said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo.

Tancredo's request, relayed in a letter to Administration Committee Chairwoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Calif., revived his effort to change House rules to abolish the groups.

Besides the Congressional Black Caucus, Democrats also have a Hispanic caucus with 21 members, and Republicans have a comparable Hispanic conference with five full members and 11 ``associate'' members who are not Hispanic."


Cmon all you "fairness-minded" DUers who "sincerely" think that the existence of CBC (and affirmative action, and the NAACP, and, and, and) is SOOOOOO racist - now is your opportunity to join those with whom you'll feel most comfortable: America's head bigot, Tom Tancredo!!!

Don't be shy!

It's a variant of reducto ad hitlerum.

You loose!

I've got George Allen and Trent Lott on speed-dial. Maybe they can join us.

Who peed in your cheerios this morning?

by people attacking the CBC, you'd probably find his thread perfectly reasonable.

I've been disgusted with the blatant racism, and I find that this OP hits the mark right where it needs to be hit.

Because to call any of the people on that other thread bigots for their mere belief that racism is not just a white phenomenon is UNreasonable in all instances, particularly this singular piece of rubbish OP.

But it is only people with the power to act on their prejudices. And that's mostly white people.

And attacking the Congressional Black Caucus, and attempting to inject white people into a black organizing committee, solely because white people (and mostly conservatives) demand it is definitely racist. People here are demanding the right to use their white privilage to tell the black members of congress what to do in the name of fighting racism. That's just amazingly arrogant and absurd.

And if this white person was allowed to join, and thereby change the entire nature of the CBC, the people demanding this change haven't even bothered to ask what the consequences would be.

If you want an open caucus of people who are against racism then write to your members of congress and ask them to form one. But don't go insisting that you know better than the black people and then claim the results aren't racist.

:thumbsup: for your post!

:thumbsdown: for those "fairness-minded" DUers who "sincerely" think that the existence of CBC (and affirmative action, and the NAACP, and, and, and) is SOOOOOO racist!

He was JUST KIDDING!!!

:freak::wow::freak::wow::freak

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

Thursday, 01/25/07

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

By ERIK SCHELZIG
The Associated Press

Freshman U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen never seriously considered asking to join the Congressional Black Caucus, the Memphis Democrat's spokeswoman said today.

<snip>

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."

There are 43 black members of Congress, all of whom are Democrats.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden, for instance.

that might be the case...

* 2015 Caucus (2006(?)–)
* 21st Century Health Care Caucus (2006(?)–)
* 4-H Caucus (2006(?)–)
* 9/11 Commission Caucus (2006(?)–)

A

* Addiction, Treatment and Recovery Caucus (2004–)
* Alzheimer's Disease Congressional Task Force (1999–)
* Anti-Value Added Tax Caucus, The (Anti-VAT Caucus) (2006(?)–)
* Appalachian Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Army Corps Reform Caucus (2006(?)–)

B

* Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Bipartisan Working Group on Disaster Recovery and Response, The (2006(?)–)
* Blue Dog Coalition (1994–)
* Building a Better America Caucus (BABC) (2006(?)–)

C

* California Democratic Congressional Delegation (2006(?)–)
* Caribbean Caucus (2003–)
* Center Aisle Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Children's Environmental Health Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Coalition on Autism Research and Education (2006(?)–)
* Community College Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Community Solutions and Initiatives Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Arts Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (1994–)
* Congressional Automotive Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Battlefield Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Bike Caucus (CBC) (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Biotechnology Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Bipartisan Cerebral Palsy Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Black Caucus (1969–)
* Congressional Boating Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Border Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Brain Injury Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Brazil Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Central America (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus on Uganda (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (1977–) Note: this was formed as the Congresswomen's Caucus, before changing its name in 1981.
* Congressional Caucus on Youth Sports (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Children's Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional China Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Climate Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Coalition on Adoption (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Coastal Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Complementary and Alternative Medicine Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Constitution Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Croatian Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Diabetes Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional E-911 Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Farmer Cooperative Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Fire Services Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Fitness Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Food Safety Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Forest Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Former Mayors Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Fraternal Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional French Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Friends of Denmark (CFD) (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Gaming Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Gulf of Mexico Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Hearing Health Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Hispanic Caucus (1976–)
* Congressional Hispanic Conference (2003–)
* Congressional HUBZone Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Horse Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Human Rights Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Humanities Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Insurance Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Intelligent Transportation Systems Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Internet Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Kidney Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Labor and Working Families Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Life Science Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Management Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Manufacturing Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Manufacturing Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Medical Professionals Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Mental Health Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Mentoring Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Mine Warfare Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Mining Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Morocco Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Organic Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Pakistan Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Port Security Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Real Estate Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Rural Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Rural Housing Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Scouting Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Savings and Ownership Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Second Amendment Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Serbian Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Ski and Snowboard Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Singapore Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Steel Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Stop DUI Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Submarine Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Taiwan Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Taskforce on International HIV/AIDS (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Tourism and Travel Caucus (CTTC) (2006(?)–)
* Congressional TRIO Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Ukrainian Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional United Kingdom Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Waterways Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Western Caucus (1992–)
* Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease (2006(?)–)
* Congressional Zoo and Aquarium Caucus (2006(?)–)

D

* Delaware River Basin Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Democratic Israel Working Group (2006(?)–)
* Duma - Congress Study Group (2006(?)–)

E

* E-waste Working Group (2005–)
* Economic Competitiveness Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Electronic Warfare (EW) Working Group (1999–)

F

* Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus (2005–)
* Flat Tax Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Friends of Norway Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Friends of Scotland Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Friends of Switzerland Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Future of American Media Caucus (2006(?)–)

G

* Global AIDS Emergency Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Great Lakes Task Force (2006(?)–)

H

* Historic Preservation Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Aerospace Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Afterschool Caucus (2005-)
* House Agriculture Energy Users Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Army Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Baltic Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Beef Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Biofuels Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Democratic Caucus (1948–)
* House Military Depot and Industrial Facilities Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Oceans Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Reading Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Recycling Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Republican Israel Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Rural Health Care Coalition (2006(?)–)
* House Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Caucus (2006(?)–)
* House Trails Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Hudson River Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Hungarian American Caucus (HAC) (2006(?)–)

I

* Indonesia Caucus (2004–)
* International Conservation Caucus (2006(?)–)
* International Workers Rights Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Interstate 69 Caucus (2006(?)–)

J

K

* Kenya Caucus (2006(?)–)

L

* Law Enforcement Caucus (1994–)

M

* Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Cooperation Caucus (2002–)
* Medical and Dental Doctors in Congress Caucus (MDC) (2006(?)–)
* Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force (2006(?)–)
* Medical Technology Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Metro Congestion Coalition (2006(?)–)
* Military Veterans Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Modeling & Simulation Training Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Mongolia Caucus (2006(?)–)

N

* National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus (2006(?)–)
* National Landscape Conservation System Caucus (2006(?)–)
* National Service Congressional Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Navy-Marine Corps Caucus (2006(?)–)
* New Democrat Coalition (1997–)
* North America’s Supercorridor Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition (2006(?)–)
* Northern Border Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Nuclear Issues Caucus (2006(?)–)

O

* Open Space Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Oral Health Caucus (2006(?)–)

P

* Passenger Rail Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Patriot Act Reform Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Pell Grant Caucus, The (2006(?)–)
* Physics Caucus, The (2006(?)–)
* Public Broadcasting Caucus (2006(?)–)

Q

* Qatari-American Economic Strategic Defense, Cultural, and Educational Partnership Caucus (2006(?)–)

R

* Recording Arts and Sciences Congressional Caucus (RASCC) (2004–)
* Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus (1996–)
* Republican Study Committee (1973–)
* Research and Development Caucus (2006(?)–)
* River of Trade Corridor Congressional Caucus (2006(?)–)

S

* Sex and Violence in the Media Caucus (2003–)
* Saudi Arabia Study Group, The (2006(?)–)
* Senate Afterschool Caucus (2005-)
* Sexual Assault Violence Elimination (SAVE) Taskforce (2006(?)–)
* Shellfish Caucus (2005–)
* Silk Road Caucus (2001)–)
* Special Operations Forces Caucus (2006(?)–)
* State Maritime Academy Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Sudan Caucus (2006(?)–)

T

* Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare (2006(?)–)
* TEX-21 Congressional Caucus (2006(?)–)

U

* Unexploded Ordnance Caucus (2005–)
* Upper Mississippi River Basin Task Force (1997–)
* U.S.-Afghan Caucus (2006(?)–)
* U.S.-China Working Group (2006(?)–)
* U.S.-Mongolia Friendship Caucus (2006(?)–)
* U.S.-New Zealand Congressional Caucus (2006(?)–)

V

W

X

Y

* Victory in Iraq Caucus (2006(?)–)
* Youth Challenge Caucus (2006(?)–)

Z

* Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus (2006(?)–)

Really, though, shouldn't the Black caucus be about the interests of Black people, and therefore, anyone with an interest in that should join?

I mean, these people have been elected to Congress.. I know there is still black racism, but they are in the forefront of the prospects of its being eliminated.

They should have let this guy join, since his district was majority black.

Some reporter should go and interview his constituents, including many of his black ones, to see if they are pissed off about it.

is for black members of congress. It has nothing to do with who their constituets are. Every white member of congress has black consituents, and every black member has white constituents. That doesn't make a white person black, or a black person white.
:eyes:

If one examines pretextual conceptual theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept social realism or conclude that language is capable of truth. Therefore, Lacan suggests the use of capitalist narrative to read sexual identity. The subpatriarchialist paradigm of narrative holds that the task of the writer is social comment, given that truth is distinct from sexuality.

“Class is intrinsically responsible for the status quo,” says Sartre. But the subject is interpolated into a pretextual conceptual theory that includes language as a paradox. Baudrillard promotes the use of social realism to challenge sexism.

The main theme of Tilton’s analysis of capitalist narrative is not dematerialism, but postdematerialism. However, la Fournier implies that we have to choose between social realism and Marxist socialism. The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is the difference between art and sexual identity. It could be said that the premise of predialectic theory holds that the establishment is part of the stasis of reality. The example of pretextual conceptual theory which is a central theme of Fellini’s 8 1/2 is also evident in La Dolce Vita.

Thus, Foucault uses the term ’social realism’ to denote a textual reality. The subject is contextualised into a capitalist narrative that includes truth as a paradox. In a sense, if pretextual conceptual theory holds, we have to choose between capitalist narrative and subconstructive narrative. Lyotard uses the term ‘pretextual conceptual theory’ to denote the role of the reader as writer.

Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes narrativity as a reality. Any number of situationisms concerning not discourse per se, but neodiscourse may be revealed.

That's a good way of not really addressing the subject.

I'm a big fan of using social theory to help understand a situation, but only if it actually addresses the situation in some concrete way. Theory for the sake of theory itself has never struck me as very useful. And you seem to be presenting theory (lots of tangential theory at that) just to present theory.

I hope that was a fun post to write.

You think that the black caucus should be about the interests of black people. I think both you and the members of the CBC would agree. (Their actual mission statement includes advancing the cause of african americans and others in similar situations.)

You have stated that, therefore, anyone with an interest in that should join.

The CBC, however, has chosen to retain an exclusively black membership.

In order for the answer to your first question to be yes, I think, logically, we must conclude that either:

(a) the CBC is more interested in keeping white people out of their group than they are in actually advancing the cause of african americans and others in similar situations.

(b) the CBC may genuinely believe remaining all black is the best strategy, but we know better than they do how the CBC can, in its limited role, advance the cause of African Americans and others in similar situations.

I reject both of those assertions out of hand, and (while I could be wrong about this) I think it likely that you might not be totally comfortable with either of them either. I would encourage you to consider what reasons a group like CBC might have for wanting to maintain an all-black membership, and what reasons they might have for believing that is their best strategy for addressing racism, etc.

The other threads in GD and GDP have long discussions as to why they might feel this way, and I think they would be worth reading. Here are those threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x17258
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3074750

My take, in summary: African Americans have a right to the opportunity to discuss issues which disproportionately affect their community without having to invite, consider, or incorporate input from people who do not share their experiences. This is not to say that they NEVER listen to other voices, or that they ALWAYS discuss these issues exclusively amongst themselves, just that those intra-community discussions are (and always have been) essential to advancing the cause of civil rights.

The CBC is one such forum, and that empowerment--as well as their ensuing status as a (not the, but a) collective black voice within the halls of an overwhelmingly white legislative body--is an essential component of the CBC's power. Again, that's not to say that organizational model is the only or the best, but rather just that it is one organization, using that established and effective model, and then working in conjunction with other organizations that draw together diverse allies in order to advance the cause of civil rights.

:applause:

You just continue to impress! How's it I don't recall other posts by you, until recently, is beyond me!

GREAT job! The summary says it all!

(a few more !!! because they are deserved!)

I appreciate the kind words. Between this thread, the original GD thread, the GDP thread, and the GD poll thread--plus a few more on this subject--I've had plenty of opportunity to refine the spiel :)

:hi:

Steve Cohen now says, after UNLEASHING the media Rottweilers on the CBC, that HE was "just kidding." I'm beginning to believe that from its inception his "joke" was a Trojan horse INTENDED to do damage to the CBC.

What he has ALREADY DONE clearly shows that his presence in the "inner sanctum" has NO VALUE to the black community. NONE. ZIP. NADA.

... how they should handle matters of race.

Hi fox! Hi hen! CHOMP!

:rofl:

You've done everyone a favor. Thank you.

Seems Congresspeople are the ultimate joiners. It's like a bigger and better version of high school.

decide whether prospective new members are allowed to join? If that is the standard procedure then this really is a tempest in a teapot.

Congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus - Do have to be an Iraqi woman and be invited?
Congressional Azerbajani Caucus - Do you have to be Azerbajani or just interested in them?

Obviously there are many, many congressional groups based on ethnic or national origins. It would be interesting to know how many of these are exclusive to the ethnic or national group and how many are simply for anyone interested in contributing to the policies that concern that ethnic or national group. If any these groups have decided not to make membership exclusive to their ethnic or national group, the decision to open up the membership may have been made with the idea of furthering the interests of the people in whose interests the group is designed to promote.

I don't know whether each one requires some kind of vote on behalf of the membership, but I believe they all have membership standards, however rigorous they may be, that are generally determined by the caucus itself and not by an outside force.

Congressional Iraqi Women's Caucus - Do have to be an Iraqi woman and be invited?
Congressional Azerbajani Caucus - Do you have to be Azerbajani or just interested in them?

Those are very different questions than the first question in your post.

If any these groups have decided not to make membership exclusive to their ethnic or national group, the decision to open up the membership may have been made with the idea of furthering the interests of the people in whose interests the group is designed to promote.

Are you suggesting that the CBC's decision could not be based on furthering the interests of the people in whose interests the group is designed to promote?

Their decision could be based on that. Most of us enjoy second guessing political tactics and strategies. Should Kerry have done this or not done that? Should our favorite candidate for 2008 be bold on this issue or very careful on that issue?

My point is not that the CBC doesn't have the right to do whatever it wants to do, but is that the best strategy for promoting civil rights. If there was a "Civil Rights Caucus for non-Blacks" (only with a much catchier name), I would be happy if the CBC provided moral leadership to it, but went on and did its own thing in its own way.

But I don't see a "CRCNB" and I wonder if the presence of the CBC somehow inhibits its creation. Are liberals and progressives, who would be the members of such a caucus, afraid of antagonizing or stealing some of the thunder from the CBC by creating what some might see as a "competing" civil rights caucus? I can't believe that there are many Democrats who would not be interested in joining such a caucus, as well as, perhaps, a few moderate Republicans.

advance the cause of civil rights?

First, with respect to the "CRCNB," I've got to wonder why a civil rights caucus would want to explicitly exclude blacks. But that aside, there may not be a "CRCNB," but there are dozens of organizations which approach civil rights from a multiracial perspective, and the CBC works with many such groups. The CBC hardly has a monopoly on civil rights work, and there's nothing stopping Cohen and others from creating a civil rights caucus.

non-blacks are not allowed in it, then these others need a civil rights caucus. You are right the idea of a "CRCNB" doesn't make sense. Instead there could be a CBC for Blacks and a "CRC" for everyone including Blacks.

I do wonder why Cohen, or others long before him, have not created a "CRC". Would it be considered "dissing" the CBC since it is the de facto civil rights caucus now. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes or who is sensitive about what in Congress, but it does seem odd that there is not a multiracial caucus on civil rights.

I'm sure they all have lots of black friends.

:eyes:

I bet they even think they have "pretty hair" ;).

Or are they just voluntary alliances, outside the official structure?

Official status? Seems unclear to me.

General

Members of Congress may form a Congressional Member Organization (CMO) in order to pursue common legislative objectives.

Registration

Each Congress, CMOs must register with the Committee on House Administration.

CMOs must provide the following information:

1. Name
2. Statement of Purpose
3. Officers of the CMO
4. Employee designated to work on issues related to the CMO

Membership

* Members of both the House and Senate may participate in CMO, but at least one of the Officers of the CMO must be a Member of the House. The participation of Senators in a CMO does not impact the scope of authorized CMO activities in any regard.

Funding and Resources

* CMOs have no separate corporate or legal identity. A CMO is not an employing authority. The MRA may not directly support a CMO as an independent entity. A CMO may not be assigned separate office space.
* Neither CMOs nor individual Members may accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support the CMO. Members may use personal funds to support the CMO.
* A Member of a CMO, in support of the objectives of that CMO, may utilize employees (including shared employees) and official resources under the control of the Member to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives, but no employees may be appointed in the name of a CMO.

Communications

* CMOs may not use the Frank, nor may a Member lend his or her Frank to a CMO.
* A Member may use official resources for communications related to the purpose of a CMO. Any such communications must comply with the Franking Regulations.
* Members may devote a section of their official Web site to CMO issues, but CMOs may not have independent Web pages.
* A Member may use inside mail to communicate information related to a CMO.
* Members may prepare material related to CMO issues for dissemination.
* Official funds may not be used to print or pay for stationery for the CMO.
* Members may refer to their membership in a CMO on their official stationery.

they have no legal identity of their own, they play no direct role in policy, and they aren't funded by public money, so in that sense they are outside the official structure. They can use the resources available to congressmen in the course of their work--personal office space, stationary, staffers, etc., and there are regulations for such congressional membership organizations in the House Rules, so in that sense they are not outside the official structure.

That is a bit vague, perhaps purposely so.

Given all of that, it seems okay to me for the caucuses to restrict their membership any way they want to. If they had a more official status or role, I'd feel otherwise.

I'm sure the members of this board have been waiting with bated breath for me to reach my decision. You can all go home now. :)

And that makes it okay. :sarcasm:

ibtl...

means that somehow they're not being racist.
:sarcasm:

did it become racist to think that people shouldn't be treated differently based on the colour of their skin???

I have said I recognize some of your points for the CBC's exclusivity as valid, but your and the OP's aggression is making me seriously reconsider. If the CBC has the same snarling attitude as you two, maybe their opponents have a point.

can white people tell black people how to fight racism, and always dismantle black efforts in the process, and convince themselves that the white people aren't the ones being racist?

I won't be nice when I see ignorant people trying to dismantle an organization that does good. Especially when it's clear that the effort to dismantle that organization is only going to benefit the racists.

I would have no problem with a second caucus that was open to everyone. But there is no valid reason to dismantle the CBC.

should not be labeled RACISTS or BIGOTS for sincerely hoping for a colourblind world. Alright, maybe it isn't realistic, especially currently, but to twist that around and continually imply that fellow DUers with that hope are racist is disgusting.

Dismantling efforts of black members of congress to organize to reach that goal is another.

There is a lot of prejudice here at DU. Always has been and probably always will be. DU is not imune to prejudices. There is rampant homophobia too, and I argue against that as well. I won't let racism pass simply because it happens here.

If people were really doing something to oppose racism then I'd give people the benefit of the doubt. But in some cases it's the same people over and over again constantly sniping at every organized effort to oppose racism, and always somehow in the name of fighting racism.

colorblind world are two very different things.

which is pretty much every other caucus in either house, and really is pretty much the entire Senate except for Obama, then I'd be all for getting rid of the black and hispanic caucuses because there'd really be no reason to have them.

I often wonder if people ask themselves "why" the black caucus and the hispanic caucus exist to begin with....

that there is no reason for them to exist. Using that flawed logic they shield themselves from being forced to examine the issues.

It's disgusting that a bunch of white people with no civil rights credentials are going to get their panties in a bunch telling black members of congress what to do to organize themselves against racism.

to survive and prosper in white society. I integrated my elementary school in 1957. The first time I encountered another black face in a classroom was in 1967. I was an "overachiever" as WE were then called and survived many a racist teacher who HATED giving me the marks I EARNED. I so rarely get to compare notes with those who have a similar history. I KNOW the value of it as even those I meet for the first time, once we establish our connexion (which usually takes about 15 minutes), let loose with expressions bottled up for far too long. We recognize each other immediately and find a place of safety and confidentiality. There are core issues we simply needn't explain. They are a shared, painful experience.

The CBC has been under fire since its inception. It has succeeded against all odds in consolidating a powerful BLACK voice. There are many who find that a "threat." Would that I could personally thank Rep. Steve Cohen for his "unintended" efforts to rally the fearful to silence that voice.

and then there are those who will claim the reasons for the creation of the CBC no longer exist...

a group siding with him on this wouldn't be surprising.

So many people who think they're progressive, and think they oppose racism spent vastly more energy attacking black organizations, efforts and initiatives than they ever spend attacking actual racism.
x(

We have a lot of blatant racism here at DU, and like most bigots, they swear they're just being reasonable.

great post thom. :hug:

your post is spot on.

who are uppity enough to challenge their assumptions. x(

And I don't see things changing around here anytime soon, either.

Good post. :thumbsup:

You're so silly.

I hate posts that make me feel stupid.

maintain racial purity in the membership of a voluntary group. Or does that only apply to politicians? Or only to certain races? What about the state legislature in California? Whites are no longer a majority in that state, so are "Whites Only" groups allowed there, at least for the politicians?

Can politicians, including those in the CBC, do whatever they want? Sure. They are exempt from most labor and civil rights laws. Does that make it right or set a great example for the rest of us? I am not so sure about that.

Finally, I have seen it all. Permission from progressives to maintain racial purity in the membership of a voluntary group. Or does that only apply to politicians? Or only to certain races? What about the state legislature in California? Whites are no longer a majority in that state, so are "Whites Only" groups allowed there, at least for the politicians?

Huh? Whose "racial purity" are we really talking about here?

Consider: in order to be "black", one need only come up with one identifiable black ancestor. That's all. It used to be called the One Drop Rule.

You can look like the whitest white guy who ever lived, and it won't matter a bit: any discoverable black ancestry can qualify you as black. How the hell does that standard enforce the "racial purity" of the "black race"? Yes, please do tell us.

:eyes:


In fact, it is the designation white that is unique among American racial and ethnic designations in that it DOES make a claim of racial purity. In American usage, "white" literally means free of black ancestry.


Lots of whites have black ancestors they are unaware of, and are therefore eligible to join organizations for blacks right now. Yet so few of them seem interested in searching for their black roots! A little genealogy could end their sad "exclusion", but they shy away from it. Why do you suppose that is?

Again and again and again and again and again and again to break through white denial. (If THAT is even possible). You are directly confronting the denial in VERY straightforward terms. Americans gleefully embrace their "Cherokee" ancestry but I have yet to see ANY self-identified white on this board EVER proclaim African ancestry with pride. Many have it, don't wanna know about it and attack the CBC for excluding them when they refuse to embrace it.

that I am 1/64 Black and 1/64 Native American. You couldn't tell it by looking at me. Am I "proud" of by African ancestry? Not really, but I am not particularly "proud" of any of my ancestry. I am who I am, not who my ancestors were.

Does this mean that I could join the CBC, if I were elected to Congress? I doubt it, since I do not look "right." I am sure that many "whites" politicians and otherwise, have some black ancestors, as well as indian, asian and other ancestors of color. My son is half-Filipino (as well as 1/128 Black and 1/128 Native American - Wait! I forgot that Native Americans immigrated here from Asia thousands of years ago, so he is 65/128 Native American )

Maybe we could use a Racial Classification Board like South Africa used to have. With DNA technology so advanced today, classifying people according to their racial percentages and ancestors should be relatively easy. Not sure what we would do with the resulting information, but it would make ethnically exclusive groups easier to police.

The issue is less about DNA and more about the EXPERIENCE of being "the other." That EXPERIENCE profoundly shapes one's world view. I wish there were a pill that would darken white skin for 3 months. It would be interesting to see how many would be interested in taking it. There are books on the subject, "Black Like Me" is one. There is another more recent one but I don't remember the title off the bat. If that pill were readily available, I sincerely doubt we'd be having these silly legalistic discussions.

It might also be informative to talk to a woman who has dyed her hair blond and ask her if she was treated differently. Blond dye is the BIGGEST money-maker in the cosmetics industry. Have you ever wondered why?

I am a "white guy" to everyone's eyes, but I am French-Canadian with olive skin. I have Moorish blood in my French ancestry and would qualify for the "one drop" rule. It is not something I am ashamed about, often pointing it out to other olive-skinned friends.

Africans have the most diverse DNA (because everyone else in the world is related to one family that got out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago). Having a little recent ancestry from Africa is healthy because diverse gene pools are the hallmark of a healthy population.

I know very little about what it is to be black in America and would not presume to try to enter the CBC because of it. If I agree their positions (as I often do), I would be inclined to join their affiliates group.

So easy...and there is no need to start a new group, either. A white person can still be associated with the CBC in this way. I honestly do not see what all of this fuss is about.

How many affiliates joined the CBC in protesting the 2000 vote? Just curious.

I was not aware of its existence (which is not that unusual since I am not very expert on the workings of Congress.) I would have dispensed with some of my posts to this thread, if I had known that there was a CBC affiliate group.

snip.................

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."

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

Things that make ya go hmmmm. CBC also extends "Honorary Memberships."

is that there is SHAME involved in acknowledging ANY blood tie with a black person in America. It goes even further than that. In Louisiana one could be prevented from buying property if a black ancestor were discovered. As I've said before, I chuckle when we have those 3 digit posts of Americans claiming their Native American ancestry or complaining about their racist relatives. I have NEVER in all my years on this board seen a thread where white-identified Americans claimed ANY relationship to NEGROES.

:shrug:

in post #68.

"I have NEVER in all my years on this board seen a thread where white-identified Americans claimed ANY relationship to NEGROES."

I am who I am not who may ancestors are. I am not particularly proud or ashamed of any part of my heritage.

in Alabama. Your kid is half-Filipino. Does he pass there? How does your appearance affect his experience? My kids are half-white. How does my or their father's appearance affect their experience? (I could tell you some VERY FUNNY stories).

I can trace my ancestry back to Scotland, England and France. The tiny island my grandparents inhabited REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION of who begat whom no matter who was doing the begetting. I could take you to a family gathering and announce we'd found a common ancestor. NO ONE would bat an eyelash. Can you say the same?

But to get back on track, my understanding of BlooInBloo's style leads me to believe that the "reverse racism" codeword was the target even if a logical fallacy was employed to call attention to it.

It's been proven that the very first group of people that homo sapiens evolved from came out of Africa. I reject arguments by creationists.
I would suggest that every human being on the planet has African DNA in their background.

I'm white, my ancestry has been traced back centuries and I have ancestral connections to Muhammed.

So I'm absolutely certain I have African ancestry in my background somewhere. I'm proud of it!!

If it weren't for that group of Africans millenias ago, none of us would be here now.

But, as I've stated in other threads, there is just no way for most white people to understand what people of other cultures have gone through and continue to suffer through. Several millenia of domination at the hands of the white races cannot be erased over a few short decades, it just can't. And in many ways that domination continues and everyone accepts it.

I came to this board looking for a place where people of different cultures could find common ground and get along, working for a better future. I see discussions like this, and I see the ignorance that whites still have, and it saddens me that this comes from self proclaimed liberals.

This is why my fiance and her family and everyone around them says neither the liberals or the conservatives have ever helped them any for decades, why they don't vote, why they don't trust any of us, why at times they ACTUALLY TRUST THE REPUBLICANS MORE than the Democrats. I've heard it said that at least the Republicans are honest in their racism, whereas the liberals just mask theirs. And I see these types of discussions and for me, it just proves their opinions to be true.
It disgusts me. We're supposed to be the progressive party and we're acting like like Bush and company in my opinion.

This is one of the main reasons she told me she would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She didn't vote for Bill Clinton, and she said she wouldn't vote for anyone connected to him. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton either, and I will not vote for Hillary. Obama is the first candidate to come along in years that I have really felt a connection to, and my fiance also likes him. The fact that the nation and many here think he's not ready, doesn't have experience, or a million other excuses, makes it even more sad that he might not get to run.

The political unity of blacks has been the pebble in their shoe for lo! these many miles.

Thinking about that always cheers me up.

an excellent white guy on a black board. I don't really know of too many other people I'd give that honor to, but Steve Cohen fits the bill. He's great!

the members of the body you wish to join makes for good street cred.
You seem to have MISSED the memo. Now that his bumbling has unleashed the media Rottweilers on the CBC, an aide says he was "just kidding!" :eyes:

He did not have the political savvy to make discreet inquiries, or to garner the support of the CBC and explore his options BEFORE putting THEM on the hot seat in public. Haha!! It was all JUST A JOKE.

The man is a 4th generation Tennesseean. If he was unable to consider the ramifications of his every step viv-a-vis his constituency, then he's lovable but STUPID. Welcome to the big time.

His win is historic, something I support and applaud. Forgive me for saying directly that in his zeal, he's been a bull in the china shop. White man's burden and all...

Beaconess says it best:

"It also shows another reason why he shouldn't be in the CBC. Like most black folks who have spent their lives maneuvering through very treacherous political waters - CBC members have excellent political and social antennae, know when and how to tread lightly, when and how to wield a big stick and understand and are masters at nuance, patience, timing, and strategy.

Cohen's ham-handed approach to this issue demonstrates to me that he'd be a tremendous liability to the CBC - the last thing they need is someone as tone-deaf as he is in their midst. Someone like him on the inside could do an amazing amount of damage to their efforts."

Rep. Steve Cohen HAS ALREADY DONE AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF DAMAGE. Google CBC and the FIRST link is a HIT PIECE on the CBC, courtesy STEVE COHEN'S "CAUSE." You've insisted that he's really lovable and I don't doubt that. Perhaps you can allay my fears that he's more than a useful idiot delivering a TROJAN HORSE for whom I cannot speculate.

"I don't really know of too many other people I'd give that honor to, but Steve Cohen fits the bill."

I just heard Cafferty talking about the same thing. And apparently, this whole issues is Tancredo's new axe to grind>

Just askin'.

You obviously hate those that hate those that hate them.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Legal says I am likewise not liable for outbursts of laughter or any possible consequences thereof. I hope you didn't get in trouble or anything, though.

:thumbsup:

I'm tired of listening to the people who don't have to deal with racism pontificate to those who do. From NPR's "Bridging the Gap" series, roughly 30% of white people surveyed still hold negative views about black people. This is supposed to be the 21st century? :eyes:

Then Cohen has the nerve to say, "Just kidding! Didn't mean it!" :hi:

When's it gonna end? :shrug:

Racism will always exist in some form, but Racism in society and government is about Power and in the history of the US, that Racism has been used to oppress, murder, and destroy minority groups. This racism has existed in employment, education, health care, housing, and basically everywhere.

Minority groups have rights and since the constitution preserves the rights of all groups, it is essential to have minority group representation in Congress to preserve and oversee that these rights are maintained. The definition of a Minority is that they are subject to the actions of the Majority groups.

I also don't believe in reverse-discrimination. How can a white person claim reverse-discrimination in hiring if the entire company is 99% white. They were discriminated against because they were not as qualified as the other 99% white employees.

Now, if a company is 100% white and does not have minorities, that raises a serious Red Flag. Are there no qualified minorities applying to that company? Or is that company purposely not hiring minorities - and that means quotas may need to be established.

Now, the question that needs to be raised is if a Company should try to fix society's problems by ensuring minority hiring. Well, I believe that company's need to support the communities where they live and if there is a minority population, then that company must help out the entire community including that minority population.

In addition, the US has a terrible history of Racism against minority groups. We cannot turn a blind eye and say that these criminal acts will never repeat themselves. We need to prevent injustice and protect the Constitution.

Haha, that is a good point.

I also like to add that much of the US history of racism has to do with anti-miscegenation laws. My neighborhood has a lot of Brazilians and I found at that most Brazilians are of mixed heritage - Portugese, Black, and Indian.

The US, North America, and South America are largely inhabited by immigrant populations from Europe, Asia, and Africa. While there are currently many white people who are "mutts" - a mix of Western European heritage - British, Irish, German, Italian, etc. there has been a strong history in the US of anti-miscegenation, mixed marriages, which was largely based on slavery in the 1800's and early 1900's.

Now that its been almost 50 years since the Civil Rights movement, America can truly embrace its "melting pot" of immigrants and end racism and discrimination by having greater social tolerance for mixed marriages.

Either opposition to racial discrimination against blacks is a moral principle, or it's tribe warfare. If you don't apply that principle everywhere it's relevant, then it must be the latter.

Tom Tancredo and I both believe that the sky is blue, and that water is wet. "Bad people agree with you, so you must be bad" is one of the stupidest lines of argument I've come across.

FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the CBC refusing to allow membership to Mr Cohen - I think it's a silly and mistaken decision, but not a racist one.

But the idea that only some kinds of racism matter is one I think is evil. Either you're opposed to racism, or you aren't.

country's legislature whom they can have in their group/ caucus or not.

However, I'm a bit worried about the argument "Tom Tancredo supports this; Tancredo is a bigot; therefore anyone who also supports it is guilty of bigotry by association". It smacks a little too much of other attempts to prove 'guilt by association'; e.g. "X supports a national health service; some undemocratic Communist countries have a national health service; therefore X must be a supporter of undemocratic Communism". Or "Y is a Moslem; Al Quaeda is a Moslem group; therefore Y must be a supporter of Al Quaeda".

If the argument is that Tancredo is himself trying to stir up the situation with the CBC for his own purposes, then I can see the point; but if it's a more general guilt-by-association then I disagree with it.

is a very complicated and taboo subject. It's much more complicated than here in Europe as the denial runs so very deep. BlooinBloo is calling out a "codeword" as embraced by an easily identifiable, unrepentant racist. There are MANY coded buzzwords in American Englisch. ANYONE using the term "reverse racism" is at the very least an unconscious bigot in denial who has no understanding of the dynamics of power and race in the U.S.

by that same rationale I can say that any DU'er who has criticism of Israel should be put right next to David Duke.

:spank: ;-)

:evilgrin: