DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 23, 2007, 11:57:35 AM
-
...the absolute outrage if this were reversed? So please explain to me why this isn't, and how they're overt racism is perfectly ok. Perhaps Crane can place the best rationalization on this
Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed
By: Josephine Hearn
January 22, 2007
Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn., is not joining the Congressional Black Caucus after several current and former members made it clear that a white lawmaker was not welcome.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in a majority-black Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African- American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only 6 years old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African-American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African-Americans."
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."
Cohen won his seat in the 60 percent black district as the only white candidate in a crowded primary field. If he faces a primary challenge next year from a black candidate, as expected, some Black Caucus members may work to defeat him.
A similar situation arose in 2004 after redistricting added more black voters to the Houston district of former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas.
Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, campaigned against him.
One black member who criticized his colleagues for sandbagging Bell was Cohen's predecessor, Harold Ford.
"You have an incumbent, and you don't support an incumbent? It was inappropriate," Ford told Congressional Quarterly in 2004.
Cohen has won high marks for hiring African-Americans. His staff is now majority African- American, he said, including his chief of staff.
Racism, alive & well (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html)
-
So please explain to me why this isn't, and how they're overt racism is perfectly ok.
Security.
-
So please explain to me why this isn't, and how they're overt racism is perfectly ok.
Security.
Sorry Js, you're going to have to elaborate a tad more, since that answer of "security" in and of itself, still doesn't justify overt racism
-
It's racism.
-
Could a White guy accept a junior membership , understanding that he will be subordinate even if he remains to be the most senior?
I was once asked to join BIG which does not lmit membership by race, perhaps I still should , but will I be a benefit to the group?
http://www.bignet.org/
(http://www.bignet.org/2002graphics/2006/BIG%20Logo2007A.jpg)
-
It's racism.
Thank you. Now, why is it not condemned for such? Why is this racism "accepted", which is going on, on a daily basis, with not a hint of condemnation, while folks like Lott get pillaried for a stupid comment?
-
You tell me. I don't know why its not condemned. They're not as bad as say, the KKK but its clearly race-bias. Is the Black Caucus funded by the government in any way? It shouldn't be.
I'm sure lots of people have formed "White Caucuses", haven't they?
-
Is the Black Caucus funded by the government in any way? It shouldn't be.
Since they're all members of Congress, I'm sure they conduct their business in government facilities. In fact, I'm sure I've heard of them meeting in the Capital Building. They probably use their franking privileges for caucus mailings as well.
-
You tell me. I don't know why its not condemned. They're not as bad as say, the KKK but its clearly race-bias. Is the Black Caucus funded by the government in any way? It shouldn't be.
I'm sure lots of people have formed "White Caucuses", haven't they?
A White caucus would be pretty funny.
Who would want to join?
Members ready to retire?
-
Sorry Js, you're going to have to elaborate a tad more, since that answer of "security" in and of itself, still doesn't justify overt racism
You justify the Israeli Government's overt racism with the word "security" so I thought it was suitable to every example of racist action.
Is it only justifiable when Israel uses it as an excuse for acts of overt racism? In fairness, their racism causes much more harm to individuals than this example.
-
Is it only justifiable when Israel uses it as an excuse for acts of overt racism? In fairness, their racism causes much more harm to individuals than this example.
Israel is not a group of US Congresscritters.
-
Israel is not a group of US Congresscritters.
Boy, that's a lame reply.
-
Boy, that's a lame reply.
Not really. Our racism laws apply to Americans (like Congresscritters) and not Israelis, unless they're in this country.
-
Boy, that's a lame reply.
No more lame than excusing racism in the Unisted States House of Representatives because a foreign government exercises another form of racism.
-
I don't recall excusing them.
-
I don't recall excusing them.
You certainly minimized it.
In fairness, their racism causes much more harm to individuals than this example.
-
I don't recall excusing them.
Nor I.
-
Possibly african americans are meant to be exempted to the definition of bigotry
jesse jackson- hymie town
isaiah washington-faggot
A senator whose name escapes me skwinted her eyes to portray asian -twice
the rodney king riot -all asians got attacked,when only koreans were the target-with the statement they`re all the same.
it`s just a hard sell on their part that they are not prejudice.
-
Sorry Js, you're going to have to elaborate a tad more, since that answer of "security" in and of itself, still doesn't justify overt racism
You justify the Israeli Government's overt racism with the word "security" so I thought it was suitable to every example of racist action.
Perhaps when you can show me how the Black caucus is physically attacked daily and groups diametrically opposed to their cause are on recore and up front in trying to rid the world of their existance. Groups that perhaps even have wide spread support and sympathy. THEN you may be able to apply "security" as a rationalization for their overt racism
-
No, I just put it in context. Israel's racist policies have resulted in far worse repercussions for the people of that region.
Even Steve Cohen says that he will find other ways to work with the Black Caucus and that he respects the members.
I'm not excusing racism, but I won't sit here and pretend that Steve Cohen's plight is similar to that of those who face Israeli apartheid. Surely we can work with context.
-
Perhaps when you can show me how the Black caucus is physically attacked daily and groups diametrically opposed to their cause are on recore and up front in trying to rid the world of their existance. Groups that perhaps even have wide spread support and sympathy. THEN you may be able to apply "security" as a rationalization for their overt racism
Oh there are many violent white supremacist groups in existence. Though, just as in Israel, many of the ordinary people do not support them.
I see now that there are rules regarding when racism is acceptable. How convenient.
-
No, I just put it in context. Israel's racist policies have resulted in far worse repercussions for the people of that region.
Meaning you have no examples, just a distorted attempt at connecting a completely off topic point, and supposed support of racism out of security to live. There is no context here as they're no where close to comparable. Next time though we see the Black Caucus attacked by a KKK suicide bomber, perhaps we can revisit this supposed "context" of yours.
Until then, please try addressing the point of the thread/story posted, if you don't mind
-
I agree they aren't comparable. One is Ivory Tower congressional caucus membership and the other results in desperate poverty, irrational racism, and death.
Until then, please try addressing the point of the thread/story posted, if you don't mind
No problem Sirs. I'll leave your nice little "reverse-racism" thread alone keeping in mind that while you complain about whites being discriminated against in the United States, you support much more blatant racism in another country that has horrible effects on the people living there. I'll keep that in mind every time you whine about racism, freedom, democracy, and the free-market.
Now please, return to your points about Steve Cohen and the Black Caucus, pardon my interruption.
-
I agree they aren't comparable. One is Ivory Tower congressional caucus membership and the other results in desperate poverty, irrational racism, and death.
Until then, please try addressing the point of the thread/story posted, if you don't mind
No problem Sirs. I'll leave your nice little "reverse-racism" thread alone keeping in mind that while you complain about whites being discriminated against in the United States, you support much more blatant racism in another country that has horrible effects on the people living there. I'll keep that in mind every time you whine about racism, freedom, democracy, and the free-market.
Now please, return to your points about Steve Cohen and the Black Caucus, pardon my interruption.
BAM!!
-
I agree they aren't comparable. One is Ivory Tower congressional caucus membership and the other results in desperate poverty, irrational racism, and death.
More accurately one is overt racism & segregation based nothing more than color, while the other you perceive as racism is in response to the everyday attempt at wiping them off the face of the earth, and the measures they've had to impliment as a result. Again, the history books demonstrate Israel didn't "all of a sudden" start racist actions against palestinians, just because they could. The actions they took were in direct response to the near immediate & simultanenous attacks by Israel's arab neighbors. Is Israel pure as snow?, of course not. What country is. The point remains in how amazing you minimize 1 while condeming the other. And we all know which you seem to have less trouble with.
I'll leave your nice little "reverse-racism" thread alone keeping in mind that while you complain about whites being discriminated against in the United States, you support much more blatant racism in another country that has horrible effects on the people living there.
Nice revisionist history, but whatever floats your boat, Js
-
At the end of sirs' last post, I just heard that horn riff they play when someone looks at the camera and frowns sometimes...waonh-waonh-waaaanh.
-
At the end of sirs' last post, I just heard that horn riff they play when someone looks at the camera and frowns sometimes...waonh-waonh-waaaanh.
Gotta love seeing when the left continues to demonstrate their consistent double standard. Blatant racism here.....no big deal. Supposed racism on the other side of the globe, no matter the circumstances that brought about those supposed racist acts, but because it's Israel......now THAT we have to condemn
-
Hey, I called it racism and asked questions about whether they use federal funds. What do you want from me?
The Israelis kill people. I have yet to hear of one person killed by the Black Caucus.
What we're arguing about here is the difference between a .45 and a ticking dirty bomb. Both are deadly. Both are dangerous. I would want neither around my kid but if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd be less inclined to pick the ticking dirty bomb to put in my son's toddler bed.
Ok?
What do you want from me?
This is so stupid because I was going to do a post about this Cohen thing and the general racism pervasive in Memphis and how I think it could be circumvented. I was going to be indignant about the situation with the Black Caucus and now I'm sitting here having respond to your bullshit. Jeez. Read my post tomorrow morning but it won't be because you demanded to hear some outrage on this. I was going to do it anyway, JackA.
-
Hey, I called it racism and asked questions about whether they use federal funds. What do you want from me?
Consistent condemnation
The Israelis kill people.
The Israelis kill terrorists bent on seeing them cease to exist. Occasionally, innocents are tragically caught in the crossfire. A far cry from some gneric claim that Israelis kill people. We all kill people, in various ways. The point being, Israel isning using racism to kill people, nor is the Black caucus. The difference between the 2 is largely what Js referred to before....survival (though he referred to it as "security")
I have yet to hear of one person killed by the Black Caucus. What we're arguing about here is the difference between a .45 and a ticking dirty bomb. Both are deadly. Both are dangerous.
No, what you're talking about has nothing to do with what I've been saying, nor the racism being discussed.
What do you want from me?
Asked and answered already
Read my post tomorrow morning but it won't be because you demanded to hear some outrage on this. I was going to do it anyway, JackA.
Well you ask so nicely, and so civillay, how could I not ::)