Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Congressional Black Caucus: The Last Legal Racists


At one time in America, signs like this were the norm. The Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King, White guilt, Christian brotherhood, and too many deaths removed these signs of the time.

But today, "signs" meant to separate Whites and Blacks are back if favor. At least, among Black members of Congress. The Congressional Black Caucus, have declared unequivocally Whites are not allowed.

Freshman Rep. Stephen I. Cohen, D-Tenn, who won his seat as the only white candidate in a 60 percent black district. In 1975, Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., White man, requested membership because half his constituency was Black; the six year old Black caucus denied his entrance.

The groups bylaws do not require any racial heritage, however Black Caucus co-founder former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., wrote in a memo it was "critical" for the Caucus to remain "exclusively African- American."

RACISTS! BIGOTS! HYPOCRITES!

The actions of the Congressional Black Caucus are wholely unacceptable. The Caucus itself is unacceptable and should be disbanded immediately. Congressionally approved racist organizations have no place in my America, an America in which Congressmen are not admitted or rejected by the color of their skin, but by the content of their voting districts and the political position they assume. The Congressional Black Caucus is a bigoted travesty and a throw-back to the days of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Congressional Black Caucus has burnt it's cross on the doorstep of the Union too many times to go unnoticed. The Black Caucus must be outlawed as the KKK has been outlawed. It has no place here.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

21 comments:

Gayle said...

I absolutely agree it has no place here, Indigo Red! This is nothing but rampaging racism, and it is always wrong no matter who is indulging in it!

The term "African-American" also gets me. None of these people calling themselves African-America are from Africa and most have never even been there. I'm of English desent, so am I an "English-American"? What about the Germans? Why don't they call themselves "German Americans?" Then there are "Japanese Americans";Chinese Americans;Polish Americans... well, I'm sure you get my drift. All of us simply call ourselves "Americans". If they don't want to be singled out, that's what they should be calling themselves, and some of them should be calling themselves "trouble-making Americans"!

Anonymous said...

When women, black people, or gay people, need their own safe space to be free from the presence of their oppressors it should be validated. Just because they want to get together as black people, who have a shared set of experiences, to be themeselves, and talk about their needs etc. does not mean they are racist. In fact the idea of reverse racism is completely rediculous. Racism is power plus predjudice, and black people do not have the power in this society.

Indigo Red said...

I agree, Gayle. Morgan Freeman also agrees. I once worked with a woman born and raised in S. Africa. She also happened to be white, but she could not use the term "African-American."

Mark, the point is that this is a CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS, not a sports bar. If these Reps want to get together on Thursday outside of Congress, fine, I have no problem with that. Racism has no place in the halls of government.

And don't tell me that "reverse racism is completely rediculous"! Everyone can be a racist and it has nothing at all to do with power. It has everything to do with the stupid idea that one group of people are somehow superior to another. There's not an ounce worth of difference between any two human beings.

Besides, the courts in 1978, ruled in Board of Regents v. Bakke the the plaintiff, Bakke, a white man had been denied entrance to UC Davis solely because he was not Black. The Court ordered Bakke be admitted and that reverse discrimination was not to be allowed. So not only is logic against your argument, but even the law.

But, thanks for stopping by. Please stop in again.

indigo Rose said...

My husband works inside a California prison. There are mens/womens groups -officers meeting before or after work- of African-American, Mexican-American and Native American heritage.
Note there is not a White or Caucasion group that meets. They cannot. The assumption being that if a group of whites gathers they must be KKK or Neo-Nazies.
I'm glad that in my husbands particular prison the officers seem to be color-blind. But in some areas this is what seperates instead of unifies a multi-cultural work force.

CUJO said...

With all due respect to Gayle. YOU ARE INCORRECT! The term African American uses the "African" part to place a claim on the lost heritage of the black people who live in this country. Their are no last names, Ellis Island records, or family trees we can trace in order to enjoy a stronger grasp on our heritage and DNA. This simple terms reminds us that we have a history and heritage deeper than chains and whips. It reminds us that we come from a land with languages,art, and customs solely reflective of our identities. It gives us a HERITAGE! You don't have to be able to speak Italian or be from Italy to claim to be Italian-American, or be from Ireland to claim Irish-American heritage the way millions of Americans proudly due. So being an African American has nothing to do with where you are from, it is a reflection of who you are, a testament to where your blood line originated and to a heritage lost.

Black people, African Americans have fought for a color blind society of equality since arrival in this country it is the white americans who enforced differences of the races, and lastly you would be correct in calling yourself and Anglo-American or Euro-American since only the Native American is the true American!

Anonymous said...

Indigo,
You neglect to address the reality that white people have privelage in our country, especially in our country's government and politics. The two places where especially black people may need a place to talk freely without the oppressing group, whites, present. White people do not need to meet exclusively because they do it ALL the time. Everywhere, all the time. And they, we - i am white - rule this country too. You need to confront your internal racism Indigo.

Matt Guillen said...

Well Mark, although I sympathize with the point of view which designates all whites, without exception, possibly even unintentionally, as oppressors and all blacks, even the scant number of millionaire Hollywood, sports and business figures, as the victims of this oppression, I don't think you would appreciate a caucus of Hispanic-Americans, however significant their numbers among the poor and neglected, meeting privately--considering the extent to which the latino community in Los Angeles neighborhoods openly despises blacks. Of course, you might argue Hispanics are actually white...even though whites don't quite perceive them that way. The point is, discussing oppression in terms of color instead of economic class is mistaken and only fuels precisely that engine employed so long by the rich to manipulate the poor: divide and conquer.

mudkitty said...

To equate that sign with the Black Caucus is racist.

There all ready are all white clubs, btw - they're called the KKK and the White Aryian Brotherhood. Etc. In prison, no less. They just don't call themselves the "White Caucus."

But the ACLU will defend anyone racist or not, who wants to freely associate, as is the right granted to us in the constitution.

Hi y'all. Been having browser problems. I know you've all missed me something fierce.

Indigo Red said...

Thank you, Matt. That was well considered. I would object to a Cong. Hisp-Amer. Caucus, too.

The point here is not that the organization is Black; it is the exclusivity of the group. Mark mentioned gays in his first comment. He's gay; I checked his profile. I am a cripple with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita; I checked when I dressed this morning. I would object to a Congressional Gay Caucus or a Congressional Cripple Caucus if they excluded the straight, bi, or TABs (Temporarily Able Bodied.)

The NAACP has White, Hispanic-Latino, Asian members. NOW has male members (good pun, huh!), La Raza has non-Mexican members, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance has non-gay and Lesbian members. Though I may not support these groups, I do support their existance because they preach and practice inclusion.

The Congressional Black Caucus preaches inclusion, but practices exclusion; this is hypocracy in it's purist form. At the very least, the KKK practices what it preaches and everyone knows the membership qualifications. It is a vile organization and has been rightly labelled as racist. It's time the Black Caucus be inclusive or disbanded.

indigo Rose said...

I believe the point being made is that this is a political caucaus, "a meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usu. to decide upon policies and candidates".
Having an African-American caucus is not condusive to fighting the oppression and division that they are basing their rights upon. These are a group of elected people. I must assume that whites also voted for them because they stood for something the majority in their district believed in. Who will they be speaking for?

Indigo Red said...

MUDKITTY! I was about to send out a search party, but they had too much to drink and have all passed out.

In general, I agree with your comment above. The only infraction to point out is that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are members of Congress while the KKK and the White Aryian Brotherhood are not. David Duke was not elected to Congress when his KKK affiliations were recognized. (And keep the resultant comments post-1990, please.)

It is the exclusionary factor AND being an elected public servant Member of Congress that is the problem. Such racial divides do not belong in government by the peeps, for the peeps, and of the peeps.

Mike's America said...

Kitty Litter is a racist! She's just too dumb to know it.

mudkitty said...

I somewhat agree with Red.

Ah Mike, ever at the ready with a personal insult.

Anonymous said...

Oh and how one party likes to scream that bias when the hand is caught in the cookie jar!

mudkitty said...

One party, or the other? Let's see, how many republican officials went to jail last year, vs, well you know.

Indigo Red said...

How many?

dcat said...

You mean Democrats?

mudkitty said...

None on the democratIC side.

So far, 3 republicans from the leadership are already in the pokey. Tom Delay...leader of your party is next.

dcat said...

Go use your box mudkitty and make sure to cover it real good! Don’t use shredded evidence though it will look suspicious. Line it with the part that had Clinton being impeached that should wrap it all up neat and clean!

I won't bother with you again! Your too easy!

dcat said...

Enjoy!

Mike's America said...

I wonder what the Black Caucus thinks of Senator Biden (talking about B. Hussien Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man."