Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

[Captain America]

They were formed to advance the interests and voice the issues concerning African Americans and African Americans alone.

I suppose the same could be said for the KKK, Arian Nations, etc.... (only but for white people.)

 

[Hatuey]

What issues are unique and specific blacks?

I never said anything remotely close to that. When I said African Americans alone I ment they speak for African Americans only. They dont speak for Italian Americans, Asian-Americans or Jewish-Americans. People put more weight on their title then it actually carries. They werent formed to protect equality for all men they were simply formed to make sure the concerns and issues of one group of people are heard. Nothing more nothing less.

And those are specifically what?

I never said these were issues that were specific to black people. I simply stated that these were issues the black comunity is concerned with. Drugs in black neighbourhoods, gangs in black neighbourhoods, urban gentrification, black on black violence, police brutality, racism in the educational system are all included. The list goes on.

I suppose the same could be said for the KKK, Arian Nations, etc.... (only but for white people.)

Like I said I'm not here to make judgement on the Black Caucus I'm simply stating what their job is. People have some wierd notion that they are the guys behind the civil rights movement. This couldn't be further from the truth. They're just there to promote the views of one group of people. Just like the Hispanic Caucus and the Pacific-American Caucus and the Italian-American Caucus. You'd have to accuse all these groups of being racist too. They're exclusive, they have rules. Call them racist all you want. It still doesn't detract from the fact that they are Washington's equivalent of a club and only let the people they want in. They could have said they dont want to let him in because he wears glasses. Would you consider them bullies who dont like nerdy looking people?

 

[Goobieman]

They're just there to promote the views of one group of people. Just like the Hispanic Caucus and the Pacific-American Caucus and the Italian-American Caucus and the Women's Caucus.

So, if there were a White Angl-Saxon Protestant Caucus that refused to admit blacks, you'd not only not see them as racist, but you'd defend their decision to exclude blacks for the same reasons.

Right?

 

[Hatuey]

So, if there were a White Angl-Saxon Protestant Caucus that refused to admit blacks, you'd not only not see them as racist,

I've never said the black caucus is not racist. I've simply said that people put more weight on them they actually carry. They're not there to promote equality. They're just there to promote the views of African Americans and nothing else. I agreed that they had shown themselves to be racist by excluding a person because of their skin color. Mr. Cohen, who because of his political situation has to have the interests of blacks close by if he wants to be re-elected, probably thought that because of the situation he'd be allowed in. Sadly this wasn't the case. Racism played a part that is for sure. However I'm only here to clarify this wierd idea people have that the black caucus and the civil rights movement are synonymous with eachother. I'm not here to defend their decision.

but you'd defend their decision to exclude blacks for the same reasons. Right?

I never defended the decision of the black caucus. Au contraire I said they are doing a disservice to African Americans.

Add : Mr. Cohen deserved to be allowed into the Black Caucus on the basis that a majority of his constituents probably face most of the issues discussed by the black caucus.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

So, if there were a White Angl-Saxon Protestant Caucus that refused to admit blacks, you'd not only not see them as racist, but you'd defend their decision to exclude blacks for the same reasons.

Right?

Excellent question. I look forward to seeing how it is answered.

 

[Hatuey]

Excellent question. I look forward to seeing how it is answered.

It was already awnsered.

 

[Goobieman]

Excellent question. I look forward to seeing how it is answered.

Given that there's little chance of this ever happening, Hautey will respond with a "yes", knowing that said "yes" will never be put to the test.

I doubt his "yes" has any real sincerity behind it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

It was already awnsered.

:lol: I saw your post. As I said, I am looking forward to someone actually answering the question.

 

[Hatuey]

Given that there's little chance of this ever happening, Hautey will respond with a "yes", knowing that said "yes" will never be put to the test.

I doubt his "yes" has any real sincerity behind it.

I already awnsered it Goobie.

I saw your post. As I said, I am looking forward to someone actually answering the question.

Did you take reading comphrehension in school? Considering I called the black caucus racist for their actions. Wouldn't my refusal to do the same with anglo-saxon caucus make me an Uncle Tom?

 

[Goobieman]

I already awnsered it Goobie.

So...you'd not only not see them as racist, but you'd defend their decision to exclude blacks for the same reasons.

Right?

Just give us a yes or no.

 

[Hatuey]

So...you'd not only not see them as racist, but you'd defend their decision to exclude blacks for the same reasons.

Right?

Just give us a yes or no.

I never defended the decision of the Black Caucus though. I stated in 3 different posts that they were doing a disservice to all African Americans in Mr. Cohen's constituency. Does that really sound like defending to you? Son you're only reading what you want to read. Please keep up.

Edit : If Obama constituency was 60-80% white and he tried to join this future Anglo-Saxon Caucus and was denied. My opinion of their actions would be the same. They're doing a disservice to the constituents of Mr. Obama by refusing him entry to their club because of skin pigmentation. Would that make them racists? Yes it would. However I dont understand what you're trying to debate here. I called the Black Caucus racist for their actions. I'd do the same if a future Anglo-Saxon Caucus commited them so what exacly is there to debate here?

 

[danarhea]

I've never said the black caucus is not racist. I've simply said that people put more weight on them they actually carry. They're not there to promote equality. They're just there to promote the views of African Americans and nothing else. I agreed that they had shown themselves to be racist by excluding a person because of their skin color. Mr. Cohen, who because of his political situation has to have the interests of blacks close by if he wants to be re-elected, probably thought that because of the situation he'd be allowed in. Sadly this wasn't the case. Racism played a part that is for sure. However I'm only here to clarify this wierd idea people have that the black caucus and the civil rights movement are synonymous with eachother. I'm not here to defend their decision.



I never defended the decision of the black caucus. Au contraire I said they are doing a disservice to African Americans.

Add : Mr. Cohen deserved to be allowed into the Black Caucus on the basis that a majority of his constituents probably face most of the issues discussed by the black caucus.

Actually, I see no problem with a black caucus in Congress. After all, if corporations can have representation in Congress, and they have plenty of it, what is wrong with a black caucus to balance that out, since some things that corporations do are not in the interest of the black community. You spoke of urban gentrification. That is an issue. And what about the targeting of black communities by the alcohol industry, who want malt liquor prominent in the black community, and target their advertising and the placement of their products towards that end? All for a buck, but at the price of human misery. I would say that this is also an issue affecting the black community, and something I am sure that the black caucus also addresses.

So, in the end, you have the black caucus, which balances out K street well. In fact, even better - Here you have Congressmen who are beholding to those who elected them, and doing their work, instead of the K street-controlled Congressmen who sold their own souls, and sold their own constituents out, for a buck.

 

[Goobieman]

I never defended the decision of the Black Caucus though. I stated in 3 different posts that they were doing a disservice to all African Americans in Mr. Cohen's constituency. Does that really sound like defending to you? Son you're only reading what you want to read. Please keep up.

Never mind -- I didn't see where you called the BC racist.

 

[Hatuey]

Never mind -- I didn't see where you called the BC racist.

Yeah I kinda figured out it was a blind attack.

 

[Goobieman]

Yeah I kinda figured out it was a blind attack.

Where was the attack?
I asked you a question, and a perfectly legitimate question at that.

 

[Hatuey]

Where was the attack?
I asked you a question, and a perfectly legitimate question at that.

Sure. I'm sure there was no agenda behind it. Please. It's ok. Just read a little bit more before you go off and post.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
What issues are unique and specific blacks?

I never said anything remotely close to that.

Well yes you did.

Originally Posted by Hatuey
They were simply formed to protect the interests of African Americans in the U.S.



So try again.

What are these issues that are unique and specific to blacks. Caucasus usually dealing with matters unique and specific to what they are named for and you said these are the interest of African Americans specifically.

When I said African Americans alone I ment they speak for African Americans only. They dont speak for Italian Americans, Asian-Americans or Jewish-Americans.

Because they are dealing with items of interest specifically to African-Americans as you said. What are some of those issues. If the issues are not specific to African Americans then why don't they work to speak for all Americans, why just a specific race, that's bigotry. And can anyone claim to speak for ALL of a certain race? What about the black people in that New Orleans district that is even majority Black, shouldn't they have a voice on the Congressional BLACK Caucus if they are suppose to representing their specific interest? Even if he is White?

People put more weight on their title then it actually carries. They werent formed to protect equality for all men they were simply formed to make sure the concerns and issues of one group of people are heard.

Then why are they excluding the White Representative from the majority Black district in New Orleans? And again what are the specific concerns of African Americans that require a Black caucus where the membership is based on your color and not your constituents.

Nothing more nothing less.

You may be more correct than you could imagine. A lot of nothing, but it is still the appearance and they are members of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS which is suppose to represent us all without regard to our race.

I never said these were issues that were specific to black people. I simply stated that these were issues the black comunity is concerned with.

Well then so is everyone else, why does the black community seek to segregate itself in that concern? Why do their so called leaders wish to act as BLACK Congress and not just American Congressmen. And what are these issues?

Drugs in black neighbourhoods, gangs in black neighbourhoods, urban gentrification, black on black violence, police brutality, racism in the educational system are all included. The list goes on.

So why don't they come together with everyone and try to solve them instead of segregating themselves as a Black only group? We ALL face those problems, they ALL effect us, and the solutions require ALL of us work together.

And tell me why, if the purpose of the Black caucus is to serve the needs of Black citizens, not the Black representitives themselves, that it requires a Whites Need Not Apply sign?

 

[Hatuey]

Well yes you did.

No I did not. You're claiming that I said "Specific to African Americans" when I said "Concerning African Americans". An Issue does not have to be specific to one group for it to be concerned. Gang violence is not an issue specific to blacks. It affects whites, asians, latinos. However the black caucus is in charge of speaking on behalf of the black community and only the black community when it comes to this problem.

What are these issues that are unique and specific to blacks. Caucasus usually dealing with matters unique and specific to what they are named for and you said these are the interest of African Americans specifically.

I never ment for any of these issues to sound like they only concerned African Americans. I simply ment for you to understand that the black caucus is not in charge of speaking for other groups. They dont speak for asians, hispanics or whites. They speak for black communities.

Because they are dealing with items of interest specifically to African-Americans as you said.

I never said such a thing but please continue to believe I did.

What are some of those issues. If the issues are not specific to African Americans then why don't they work to speak for all Americans,

You're asking me why people in Washington don't do what you think they should do? The same reason people in Washington dont do what I think they should do.:roll:

why just a specific race, that's bigotry.

Claiming that some blacks are guilty of bigotry because they only speak for blacks is like saying Americans are bigots because they only speak for Americans. Please understand that people tend to speak for those they know best. Their own.

And can anyone claim to speak for ALL of a certain race?

I could be wrong. Considering all current members of the black caucus are democrat and nearly all blacks(97% and higher correct?) vote democrat. I'd say it's safe to say they speak for "most" .

What about the black people in that New Orleans district that is even majority Black, shouldn't they have a voice on the Congressional BLACK Caucus if they are suppose to representing their specific interest? Even if he is White?

What are you arguing here? I already said if the lawmaker wants to join because the interests of his black constituents need a podium to be heard on he should be allowed to join. Refusal to allow him to do so would be doing a disservice to blacks in general.

Then why are they excluding the White Representative from the majority Black district in New Orleans?

I guess the same reason they didn't let Mr.Cohen in. I still dont see what you're trying to debate here.

And again what are the specific concerns of African Americans that require a Black caucus where the membership is based on your color and not your constituents.

I've already stated that their actions were wrong and they were doing a disservice to African Americans in Mr.Cohens constituency.

You may be more correct than you could imagine. A lot of nothing, but it is still the appearance and they are members of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS which is suppose to represent us all without regard to our race.

Ah yes but see the problem is when one tends to ignore "race" the concerns of some people tend to be pushed aside or completely forgotten. How long has crack been a problem in black neighbourhoods? How long has gang violence been a problem in black neighbourhoods? Having a black caucus allows some people to believe that their concerns are voiced at D.C. . Asking me why we can't have one united congress to represent all of our needs is like asking me why we can't all get along. I could sit here all day and I wouldn't even get past the tip of the iceberg.

Well then so is everyone else, why does the black community seek to segregate itself in that concern? Why do their so called leaders wish to act as BLACK Congress and not just American Congressmen. And what are these issues?

The same reason there is a Hispanic-American Caucus and an Pacific-American Caucus. The same reason Chinese people have Chinatowns and Italians have little Italie's and Jews have groups against the defamations of their "races". People tend to group together when an ethnicity/skin color is a common denominator.

So why don't they come together with everyone and try to solve them instead of segregating themselves as a Black only group? We ALL face those problems, they ALL effect us, and the solutions require ALL of us work together.

The way I see it is this way :

Some politicians care about the drug epidemic in the black community when they want to get elected. They start inniciatives that are either too broad and dont help anybody or simply refuse to deal with the issue(and it is an issue) after they've been elected. Others are pressured by members of their "race" to talk about it atleast once a week or risk being called Uncle Toms or Oreo Cookies. I'd rather have a guy who'll talk about it because he wants to get elected again. Then one who'll just try to get my vote and then forget about the problems facing my community.

And tell me why, if the purpose of the Black caucus is to serve the needs of Black citizens, not the Black representitives themselves, that it requires a Whites Need Not Apply sign?

I think you're the second person to try and subliminally sugest something that makes me believe that I've somehow defended the actions of the caucus when I've done nothing of the sort.

 

[Cold Dirt]

So we have it....the black caucus is not only a bunch of liberals but racist too.

thought liberals werent racists?

 

[Stinger]

No I did not. You're claiming that I said "Specific to African Americans" when I said "Concerning African Americans".

Well yes you did, here again

Originally Posted by Hatuey
They were simply formed to protect the interests of African Americans in the U.S.

That makes it specific to African Americans. "OF"

An Issue does not have to be specific to one group for it to be concerned.

but as you said it............

Gang violence is not an issue specific to blacks. It affects whites, asians, latinos. However the black caucus is in charge of speaking on behalf of the black community and only the black community when it comes to this problem.

First if it affects us all why do the segregate themselves and prohibit others to partake in their deliberations? Don't they need the diverse input bringing everyone together would give them?
Second is the black community so monolithic that one group of people can speak for it all?

I never ment for any of these issues to sound like they only concerned African Americans.

Then there is on need for a Black caucus especially one the denies membership to the representitive of a majority black community simply because he is White. It sound like they are trying to protect their OWN interest and not those of ALL the black citizens of this country.

I simply ment for you to understand that the black caucus is not in charge of speaking for other groups. They dont speak for asians, hispanics or whites. They speak for black communities.

Well I'm white what special group speaks for me and is it allowed to deny membership to Blacks?


Quote:
What are some of those issues. If the issues are not specific to African Americans then why don't they work to speak for all Americans,

You're asking me why people in Washington don't do what you think they should do? The same reason people in Washington dont do what I think they should do.:roll:

No that's not what I'm asking, try again?

Claiming that some blacks are guilty of bigotry because they only speak for blacks is like saying Americans are bigots because they only speak for Americans.

Not at all. This group denies membership to a representative of a majority black district because he is White. THAT is bigotry.

Please understand that people tend to speak for those they know best. Their own.

So as a White person I should not vote for a Black because the White person would speak better for me?

I could be wrong. Considering all current members of the black caucus are democrat and nearly all blacks(97% and higher correct?) vote democrat. I'd say it's safe to say they speak for "most" .

I think members of congress only speak for those who elect them.

What are you arguing here? I already said if the lawmaker wants to join because the interests of his black constituents need a podium to be heard on he should be allowed to join. Refusal to allow him to do so would be doing a disservice to blacks in general.

That the Congressional Black Caucus is not set of for Black voters by for Black congressmen.

Ah yes but see the problem is when one tends to ignore "race" the concerns of some people tend to be pushed aside or completely forgotten. How long has crack been a problem in black neighbourhoods? How long has gang violence been a problem in black neighbourhoods?

Pretty much as long as there has been a Black Congressional Caucus.

Having a black caucus allows some people to believe that their concerns are voiced at D.C. .

"believe", but in fact there are Blacks whose interest are being denied access to the Caucus. So who is it really representing?

Asking me why we can't have one united congress to represent all of our needs is like asking me why we can't all get along.

Why shouldn't it? Shouldn't the laws be created and administered without regard to race?

I think you're the second person to try and subliminally sugest something that makes me believe that I've somehow defended the actions of the caucus when I've done nothing of the sort.

Well you have on the one hand by saying it is there to "look out for the interest OF African Americans". But those interest appear to be no different from anyone else and you admit that they don't allow all representatives of majority black districts in so your defense falls apart.

So the question remains, what exactly are the caucusing about then.