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.