This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
[RaP] Congressional White Caucus: Racist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Pwntiff
A caucus is a meeting of supporters or members of a political party or movement, especially in the United States and Canada.
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
No one says they "can't" -- they just know it would be a politically stupid move to do something like that.
Post by
gnomerdon
Would a NBA team with only white players be considered racist? Think really hard. What would people say about it?
Post by
pezz
Would a NBA team with only white players be considered racist? Think really hard. What would people say about it?
'I see <name of team> came in last, again.'
Post by
Pwntiff
Would a NBA team with only white players be considered racist? Think really hard. What would people say about it?
All-American Basketball Alliance, Google it.
Post by
gnomerdon
Link it here. All im seeing is MC Donalds and NCAA.
Post by
Pwntiff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-American_Basketball_Alliance_(2010)
Post by
gnomerdon
I like the concept, I like the idea, and I have no problem with it. I'm not racist or anything, but I do get uncomfortable whenever I watch basketball; I usually see 2 NBA teams who are all black. I want to have variation in a team. A few mexican players, a few asian, a few black guys, and a few white guys.
edit: Let's say for example, Scotland. They have a rugby team but the entire team is composed of black descent. I want to see white scots play. :(
Same goes for Africa. If their team is Zimbobwe, I want it all to be black players.... China, chinese. America, White AND Black....
Post by
MyTie
I don't care if there is a white caucus or not. What I dislike is that if someone speaks out against the Black Caucus, they are labeled racist, but at the same time, if someone speaks for a white caucus, they are also labled racist. I despise double standards. I hate it when society says it's "ok" for a group of people to do something because of skin color, but not "ok" for another group of people. Either it is ok for everyone, or it isn't.
Post by
Jubilee
I don't care if there is a white caucus or not. What I dislike is that if someone speaks out against the Black Caucus, they are labeled racist, but at the same time, if someone speaks for a white caucus, they are also labled racist. I despise double standards. I hate it when society says it's "ok" for a group of people to do something because of skin color, but not "ok" for another group of people. Either it is ok for everyone, or it isn't.
In the vast majority of cases, it's one group of people saying the first is racist, and a different group of people saying the second is racist with little overlap. It doesn't make sense to put them together and call it a double standard. If any one person holds both those things then it's a double standard (but probably not in their own views), but two different groups of people holding opposite views is not indicative of any sort of double standard.
Post by
fenomas
Either it is ok for everyone, or it isn't.
Why doesn't the government have a Bureau of Non-Indian Affairs?
When you see the answer to that, you'll know why there is no congressional white caucus. (Or NAAWP, GLAAD for straight people, Non-Jewish Defense League, etc.)
Post by
MyTie
In the vast majority of cases, it's one group of people saying the first is racist, and a different group of people saying the second is racist with little overlap. It doesn't make sense to put them together and call it a double standard. If any one person holds both those things then it's a double standard (but probably not in their own views), but two different groups of people holding opposite views is not indicative of any sort of double standard.You don't know what a double standard is, do you. Allow me to explain: A double standard is a standard applied to one group of people, but not to another. This standard being "It is ok to create a caucus based on race". The standard is applied to blacks, but not whites. That is the double standard. One group is told "yes" and the other is told "no". How does this 'not make sense'?Why doesn't the government have a Bureau of Non-Indian Affairs?
When you see the answer to that, you'll know why there is no congressional white caucus. (Or NAAWP, GLAAD for straight people, Non-Jewish Defense League, etc.)Uh, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has the responsibility of managing all the lands held in trust with the current Indian Tribes. If you would like to call the Bureau of Land Management (handles all non indian federal lands) the Bureau of Non Indian Affairs, then you could, but that would be a little non inclusive. To be honest, it appears that you are trying to drive somewhere with this Indian affairs thing, but it isn't really apparent. Are you trying to suggest that white people's past racism somehow qualifies them for return racism at this point? Why not just come out and say what you are hinting at?
Post by
Jubilee
In the vast majority of cases, it's one group of people saying the first is racist, and a different group of people saying the second is racist with little overlap. It doesn't make sense to put them together and call it a double standard. If any one person holds both those things then it's a double standard (but probably not in their own views), but two different groups of people holding opposite views is not indicative of any sort of double standard.You don't know what a double standard is, do you. Allow me to explain: A double standard is a standard applied to one group of people, but not to another. This standard being "It is ok to create a caucus based on race". The standard is applied to blacks, but not whites. That is the double standard. One group is told "yes" and the other is told "no". How does this 'not make sense'?
I'll just repeat what I said,
In the vast majority of cases, it's one group of people saying the first is racist, and a different group of people saying the second is racist with little overlap.
Most people who are against racial caucuses are against all racial caucuses - no double standard. Most people who are permissive of racial caucuses are permissive of all racial caucuses - no double standard again.
Post by
MyTie
Most people who are against racial caucuses are against all racial caucuses - no double standard. Most people who are permissive of racial caucuses are permissive of all racial caucuses - no double standard again.
Then how does it make sense that most people are ok with the Congressional Black Caucus, but if a white congressman were to say "hey, let's form a group of exclusive people and only let WHITE people in", he would be kicked out of office faster than Anthony Wiener?
By and large, people let the Congressional Black Caucus alone. Do you really think those same people would be ok with a Congressional White Caucus?
Post by
Jubilee
The issue is that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years". There are no "white issues" that our leaders need to organize around because "white issues" is all the country has been concerned about for most of its history. Blacks are marginalized still in many areas, there are still "black issues". It's the same reason a "straight pride parade" makes no sense. Straight marriage is not an issue. When a group of people is having problems, it is only natural for them to organize around those issues.
It's not that whites have any less right to form caucus rules than black at all. It's that blacks have a much more legitimate reason for building on the issue of race than whites do.
You'll just be hitting your head against a brick wall if you trying to employ absolute racial rules to this issue. The substratum of basic rights might be equal, but circumstances are not equal, so some things won't be acceptable for both races.
Post by
Heckler
The issue is that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years". There are no "white issues" that our leaders need to organize around because "white issues" is all the country has been concerned about for most of its history. Blacks are marginalized still in many areas, there are still "black issues". It's the same reason a "straight pride parade" makes no sense. Straight marriage is not an issue. When a group of people is having problems, it is only natural for them to organize around those issues.
It's not that whites have any less right to form caucus rules than black at all. It's that blacks have a much more legitimate reason for building on the issue of race than whites do.
You'll just be hitting your head against a brick wall if you trying to employ absolute racial rules to this issue. The substratum of basic rights might be equal, but circumstances are not equal, so some things won't be acceptable for both races.
Very well said. +1 if you were still doing that.
Post by
MyTie
The issue is that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years". There are no "white issues" that our leaders need to organize around because "white issues" is all the country has been concerned about for most of its history. Blacks are marginalized still in many areas, there are still "black issues". It's the same reason a "straight pride parade" makes no sense. Straight marriage is not an issue. When a group of people is having problems, it is only natural for them to organize around those issues.
It's not that whites have any less right to form caucus rules than black at all. It's that blacks have a much more legitimate reason for building on the issue of race than whites do.
You'll just be hitting your head against a brick wall if you trying to employ absolute racial rules to this issue. The substratum of basic rights might be equal, but circumstances are not equal, so some things won't be acceptable for both races.
This is the most convincing argument I've heard for the Black Caucus. You are right in the fact that there should be a black caucus. For the record, I don't think the Congressional Black Caucus is going about helping Black people the way I think they should be helped. In fact, I don't know how truly effective a Black Caucus can be for blacks, as I believe many of the problems with blacks in America is cultural, and not political.
However, the issue I'm trying to present isn't the usefulness of a Black Caucus, or the usefulness of a White Caucus. I'm trying to present the issue of the double standard in society concerning racism. One is accepted, and the other would cause mass anger.
Post by
executorvgk
The problem with a white caucus is that members of the black race would start playing the martyr, scream racism compare it to the KKK etc. while having a similar union of African Americans would be completely acceptable.
This isn't just for a Caucus but for anything regarding race really, a lot (not all) of black people seem to have a bit of a martyr complex when it comes to race. Don't believe me? Don't look any farther than this site, make a post listing every racial slur you can think off encompassing every race that comes to mind, most if not almost all of them of them aren't going to be censored; guess which 1 racial slur however will be?
It's kind of funny we as a society preach tolerance and equality, yet we need to watch our tongues when it comes to anything 1 race may deem offensive, something we don't do with other races, and then go around and consider it acceptable for another group to be discriminated
and even (to an extent) demonized by the media
Post by
MyTie
YES! Well said executor. The hypocrisy is nauseating, and oh so obvious, yet we all pretend to be ok with it, because we feel guilty for things that happened before our lifetime.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
