This article is from 2010, however it raises a valid question that doesn’t
seem to ever get covered.
“None of our Congressional
representatives have the courage to point out that racism is racism. In fact,
none in our Judicial system has that kind of courage either, as Black Chambers
of Commerce, Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People are all still in existence today, while no one,
white, black, brown or red has the courage to point out that these are all
racist organizations.”
Don Cobb (who is a black man) makes a lot of valid points here. He
acknowledges that when groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus (1969) were
created they served an important purpose and were needed. What do you think the
reaction would be if a congressional member attempted to establish a
Congressional White Caucus or a White Chamber of Commerce? Cobb asserts that white people are not
allowed to create organizations designed to support themselves.
By establishing these types of groups, we are acknowledging that there
is a difference between race and that special considerations are required because
an individual has a different skin color. If you felt that any of the
hypothetical organizations I listed above would be racist, then we agree that
any group that distinguishes itself based on race is…racist? Keep in mind that
the Congressional Black Caucus does not allow non-blacks membership (not to
imply that this is the only example or the main offenders, just a specific
example). If these groups are not racist then there should be no opposition to
similar groups that represent all races. If these groups are racist, it would
be wise to purge the legislative branch of them, if we actually want to get rid
of racism.It's an interesting perspective regardless of your stance on this.
I think most people would refer to the White Congressional Caucus as Congress. We still have a congress that is under-representative of women and minorities. These caucuses help them represent their communities.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comment and perspective though and a lot of people would agree with you. I'd also like to clarify that I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right. I thought about what you said and came to these issues. Feel free to do the same!
DeleteI agree whites are dominant in Congress. At the base of the electoral system, we all have on congressional member in the house, 2 in the Senate, and so on all the way to city governments. At that point we all have equal representation, true equality. Another issue I came to is how those groups limit membership to the same skin color (there's a women's caucus too) but whites don't get that same exclusive membership. Blacks, whites, Latinos, Republicans, Democrats
ReplyDelete...women, and everyone in between is the "white caucus". If they're all the white caucus why is any caucus established, ya know? We all have the exact same # of representatives, that's why voting is so key to suffrage movements. If you're not represented, you can vote for a different candidate who will.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said "why is any caucus established" i didnt mean to apply that to all of them, just the ones that have race-driven membership requirements.
DeleteI think if we view Congress as representative of one race, there's still a degree of racism in the legislative branch, because its supposed to be every single person, race irrelevant.
ReplyDelete