Skip to main content

View Diary: Why did Congressional Black Caucus invite Scott and West? (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why should that woman be shut out? (0+ / 0-)

    No matter how much she keeps in touch with her district, long-time hispanic members will be an excellent resource for current struggles in the minority district

    It would be an invaluable opportunity to go to their meetings and hear the what other hispanic-districts are going through

    but fuck that, right, because how comfortable a few rich men and women are is more important than millions of struggling minorities

    •  If it concerned her (0+ / 0-)

      She could start another caucus.

      I am Blackwaterdog! I support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party!! Want some? Get some SUCKERS!!!

      by Adept2u on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 10:04:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the non-douchebag caucus? (0+ / 0-)

        sign me up

        •  Who are you calling douch bag? (0+ / 0-)

          The CBC?  That is the most progressive organization in America and they are douche bags now?  The entirety of the Senate is a white persons club starting January, the US congress has advocated the white persons position for 200 plus years it can have one organization where black people can talk.

          I am Blackwaterdog! I support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party!! Want some? Get some SUCKERS!!!

          by Adept2u on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 10:56:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hispanic Caucus could still work closely with her (0+ / 0-)

        And would probly invite her to some meetings and events, furnish her with information and input, provide contacts, networking, other support, including reference to other, "open" groups they participate in, work with or support, keeping her informed with position statements on the issues as they see them, for her consideration, etc. etc.

        But when it comes down to membership rights, like internal discussion and voting on policy and program of the group, I can see limiting participation in that regard, especially under present conditions of such harsh socio-economic contradictions, historically faced by minority groups.

        People need to know and feel that they are seizing and exercising control over their own destiny as a group, especially when they have been denied that "privilege" for so many generations.

        It's only natural and right for "exclusive" groups to emerge...although I think it does also seem there could be some dangers there, and a need for consciously avoiding a descent into strictly subjective nationalist chauvinism.

        Ultimately, narrow appeals to a subjective, and especially chauvinist, nationalism (or any single issue approach, really) seem destined to devolve into opportunism, and unprincipled disregard for "others", to one groups' own perceived benefit, which goes against the grain of what most of us want to see happen.

        Rational and just balance in that regard, in terms of mitigating and compensating for the effects of past injustices and at the same time, maintaining concepts of universal citizenship, and that the common interest must prevail...I think that's going to be much harder to maintain under the influence of more or less subjectively inclined tendencies like nationalism, and it's ultimate logical progression, chauvinism.

        As an internationalist, I'm inclined to be very wary of nationalism, per se, even as I recognize it's unavoidable existence, and more or less legitimate claims to sovereignty...

        Nationalism does seem to be a useful stepping stone, perhaps, to a higher level of perception, in terms of generating self-respect and confidence, for people long denied any space or hope for any such social expressions.  

        But then, I think it needs to move to a higher level, beyond the nationalist perspective, to avoid the pitfalls inherent to such tendencies, in order to make real progress, in any kind of really revolutionary, democratic, fundamental change sense.

        Indeed, it seems it was at least partly this realization that got Malcom X killed (an element, a factor, among other things?), when he came back from his hajj, and began to assert a more comprehensive and genuinely revolutionary, internationalist perspective, which very substantially transcended the old-school NOI line, and was thus seen as a threat, not only by NOI, but also, all the more so, by the government.

        Similarly, MLK had begun to speak a lot less about exclusively black issues and needs, and a lot more about working people in general, and broader issues of international justice, like the Viet Nam war...just before he was killed.

        Nationalism is more easily manipulated, I think, because it can tend to get so subjective...This makes it somewhat less of a threat, perhaps, in some regards, than a more universalist, internationalist perspective, as far as right wing reactionary conservative counter-revolutionary anti-democratic monopoly corporate fascist elements are concerned.

        Hh, and I'm just saying, speaking in general, heh...not meaning to imply that CBC is chauvinist, per se...in fact their statement of purpose seems to make clear their strong interest in universal issues.

        "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

        by Radical def on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:08:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site