Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Clearly this "discriminatory" policy is rooted... (0+ / 0-) the long history of whites seeking to impose "helpful advice" and even attempting to "lead" and direct black activism, even when they may have little or no direct connection to, or real knowledge and understanding, of what it's really like to be black in America.  

    However sympathetic, well-meaning and even genuinely helpful such elements may try to be, or even actually be, on some levels, a certain tension arises, as people tend to revert to deeply ingrained learned behavior and response patterns that end up distracting and even diverting a lot of energy.

    It can be maddening to have to go over and over and around and around on the most fundamental and elementary concepts, with people who don't really have much of a clue.  

    While definitely need to be done, and there need to  be venues for such work, there also need to be venues where that is not all that ends up happening, ad nauseum, eating up all the time and energy, lol.

    just as with many womens' groups, they just want an opportunity to be able to relax and be candid among themselves, discuss issues and plan their activities without constantly having to be on guard against "others" trying to Bogart the scene.

    After all, even within a more or less exclusive group, there are stil going to be more than enough strong personalities and power plays, as it is, to sort out, LOL.

    While I understand this, and I think such specific groups may need and deserve such exclusive spaces, more or less, as part of the process for sorting things out and figuring out what should be done as a group, ultimately they are going to have to interact with "others", to get anything meaningful accomplished.

    But they can also start or join other broader membership organizations for that purpose, which is not necessarily negated by also having some exclusive groups.

    As I understand it, the NAACP, for example, is not exclusive, and has been very effective in bringing diverse groupings together for common cause.

    OTOH, it does tend to rub the wrong way, to even contemplate an exclusively white caucus or organization, because that demographic has so long enjoyed grossly inequitable power and privilege, to the direct and detrimental expense of all other groupings.  To further formalize, consolidate and expand upon that inherent inordinate and unjust power thus seems...inappropriate.

    I'd much rather see black, Hispanic, Asian, womens', gay, green, or labor Democratic Party caucuses, than moves to start a whole new party to exclusively represent any particular groups' interests.

    Hopefully, some day we'll move beyond the percieved need for exclusively black, latino, womens', gay, etc. groups, which are mainly a defensive means for maintaining focus and integrity. ..but that evolution won't occur until systematic assaults on those groups' fundamental human rights have really become a thing of the past.

    We've still got a long way to go, in that regard.

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

    by Radical def on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 11:38:05 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site