Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Where's The Outrage?

Were that there were such a thing as the Congressional White Caucus, I'm sure that if it was announced that it's leadership made it clear that the membership was to be white-only, Washington DC would be for real on fire right about now.

It's good to know that the race card plays both ways still, including having sitting members of the House campaign actively against a fellow incumbent, in favor of a challenger who happens to also be black.


Anonymous said...

It's long been known that Affirmative Action, cultural diversity, etc. is a one way street. Take a look at the University of Tennessee:
Black Cultural Center
Black Cultural Programming Committee
Black Engineers, National Society of
Black Faculty and Staff Association
Blacks, Commission for

Women, Commission for

Nothing directly related to men, other than men's athletics, or any other racial or cultural group other than the academic classes. You'd think with males being a minority in colleges and continually declining in enrollment they might pay some attention.

Guess they'll wait till it's a crisis and then snicker and say that's what they get for years of oppressing others.

Patrick Armstrong said...

(Virtually rolling eyes.)

1. The US Congress itself served as the "Congressional White Caucus" from roughly 1789 to 1865. At the time said US Congress was integrated by blacks, it was done so forcefully at the end of Union bayonets. This practice ended in 1877, and the Congressional White Caucus was returned to their prominent and dominant role.

2. It will never suprise me when minority groups form members only clubs and organizations in order to highlight certain differences from the overwhelmingly white popular culture phenomenon.

3. Yeah, lemme know the next time the Kappa Alphas induct some women or black men into their clubs.

I mean, I know it must totally suck to be the part of such a powerful and affluent majority demographic that the backstage pass not working on a scant few organizations is enough to cause outrage.

Dante said...

There's only one thing that really bothers me here. From the Congressional Black Caucus website:
"Since the formation of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the core mission of the CBC has been to close (and, ultimately, to eliminate) disparities that exist between African-Americans and white Americans in every aspect of life. These continuing and troubling disparities make it more difficult, and often make it impossible, for African-Americans to reach their full potential. In pursuing the core mission of the CBC, the CBC has been true to its motto that "the CBC has no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.""

From their stated goal, I would think they would want a member of Congress with such a large black represnation in their caucus. But in reality, that is not their goal at all. They want a black-only caucus. That's fine by me but they should at least have the brass to be upfront about it.

liberalandproud said...

I would point out that, while I was at UT, all-male organizations had specific housing (fraternities), while all-female organizations had meeting rooms in a common hall (sororities). Apparently, there were still afraid that sorority houses would turn into whorehouses. Nevermind that most of the debauchery I witnessed took place in fraternity houses.
Don't know if UT is the one to hold up for oppression of the "male minority."

Anonymous said...

L&P - I went to UT also, as you know. I always found that discrepancy odd but you know what they say, "There are no prostitutes in Tennessee, They're all Volunteers."

Patrick - (rolling my eyes also) Your response is the typical, tired liberal response. When are we going to live in the present and not 1820 or so? If you really want to bring about equality rather than highlight differences form a group that crosses over to willing members of all groups. It's awful hard to practice separate but equal, as we all know.

Yeah, it's OK to discrminate and segregate because somebody else did it to us 25, 50, 100, 150, etc. years ago. Where's it all end?

Patrick Armstrong said...

I'd argue (figure that) that mine is not a tired, liberal response but rather a stab at living in reality. You don't have to go back to 1820 to find that the American world is dominated by the caucasian male. You have to go back as far as, like, Tuesday.

Everyday is white boy day.

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, Jackson, Hamilton, Grant...these guys are on our money (with the notable exception of Sacajawea on the dollar coin that we - just - put there). All Super Bowl coaches up till last Sunday? All white guys. Most of the big dog CEO's? White guys. Most of the Presidents? White guys. Most of the cops? White guys. Most of the Senators? White guys. When we study American history, if the book is 300 pages long, 250 of those pages will be dedicated to white guys, and out of the 50 pages dedicated to 'others,' the lion's share of those will come in at about pages 150-175 and pages 250-275.

They want to have a Black Congressional Caucus, and refuse membership to a white guy? Sure. The white guy is not hurting for membership in other exclusive clubs, I guarantee you, and as long as the official decision making clubs (like the "Ways and Means" and "Ethics" committees) remain integrated, I got no problem. Maybe one day, the "Black Congressional Caucus" will be extended to include all representatives who represent majority black districts, maybe not. Maybe homeboy can form his own organization: The Majority Black District Congressional Caucus: Proof I Ain't White & Nerdy!

I mean, diversity is very, very new to many things, American historically speaking. I'm willing to give a little leeway for minorities to have little exclusive clubs like us white guys have always had, and still, to this day, maintain.

You also have to look at it like this. A congressional black caucus has, 30, 40 members? A congressional white caucus would have, what, 400 members? It ain't like refusing homeboy membership is really shutting him out of the decision making process in Congress...

Anonymous said...

Well, Patrick, all I can say is that I've been hearing the same old stuff as your saying here from my liberal families members and friends for about 40 years (happens when you get old). The beginning of the end of my liberalism was when my mother told be that it was OK to discriminate against me, her own son, because others had been discriminated against for so long. Yet, she had always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. But, some think they do in racial/gender politics.

And, yes, I have actually been denied opportunities because of my skin color, white. An unusually candid personnel worker at TVA who knew my father told me so.

The favoritism the company I work for now shows women is almost beyond absurb. Twenty something women have "special work schedules". No men. Several have requested, all denied.

I'm all for equality but lets make it real equality not the "Animal Farm" some are more equal than others. We have all these special programs for women, minorities, etc., aren't they capable of making it on their own as long as the playing field is level?

I can't help it that for some reason white Europeans became the most technically advanced and dominant in the world for many years. Numbers, 400 vs. 40 don't make something right or wrong, they're just numbers. Exclusive clubs and exclusive governmental organizations are two different things. I, personally, would never join one. Years ago, when I was still married, I refused to join the local country club because there were no black members. (You could join by invitation from another memeber only and only whites seemed to get invitations.

You can bet that the taxpayers are footing the bill for the Black Congressional Congress.

Diversity is very new to every society on Earth. I'm sure that has a lot to do with our problems in the Middle East. Our style of life clashes strongly with theirs. Most of the fighting in Africa comes from a clash of cultures/tribes.

Overall, groups, such as the Black Caucus, create as much divisiveness as anything because they are only interested in one side of any issue that effects them.

Patrick Armstrong said...

As for the real issues behind what you're saying, DADvocate, I'm writing a whole new post.

The Congressional Black Caucus, on the other hand, was formed in the late 1960's early 1970's as the first black people were being elected to Congress since Reconstruction, and were still, at the time, being shut out of larger, more important organizations within the US Congress. That's not a long time ago, especially in election cycles, where only about 20 have passed since the group was started. As far as organizations go, that's not a terribly long time.

But I'll not complain about a Congressional Black Caucus so long as there is a Suburban Caucus as well. If I ever get to Congress, I hope to start the "Here's Your Sign" Caucus in honor of comedian Bill Engvall's calls at common sense. It will be open to anyone who displays common sense and a sense of humour. Those folks who have neither will be denied membership.

patsbrother said...

Because I find this argument over the membership of an informal group of legislators absurd, I will point out but one thing to illustrate why I don't care about the exclusion.

If every member of Congress who represented significant African American communities could join the Congressional Black Caucus as a matter of right, there would have been nothing to prevent former Senator Strom Thurmond from crashing the party.

It's not the Black-Interest Caucus, it's the Black Caucus. Get over it and move on.