I offered this as part of a sub-discussion on the Yearly Kos convention, but I think the matter needs to be elevated to its own diary.
As one of the African-American members of the kos community, I was rather perplexed to observe that the extensive and impressive list of Yearly Kos panelists appeared to feature no confirmed and only one invited African-American.
As I was not familiar with everyone on the list, I asked in a comment whether my perception was correct. As far as anyone seems to know, the answer is yes.
That opened up a thread in which some suggested that the proper response would be for black members like myself to attend and help address the issue of diversity (or lack therof) at the convention. It was also suggested that demographic qualifiers such as race or gender took a back seat to quality of presenter in choosing panelists for the convention.
I understand that sentiment, but I have to point out that that is exactly what employers who run afoul of diversity-oriented organizations say by way of explaining their failure to feature diversity among their employees.
I also need to add that the issue goes beyond whether we attend the convention and make our presence known. It goes to whether, we are included in the planning process and/or whether our unique perspective is reflected in the presentation of the subject matter. It has long been known that African-Americans are perhaps the single most loyal Democratic voting demographic in America. And certainly there is a considerable number of African-American members of kos. So it comes across to some black members as, well, curious, that the convention, even by chance, apparently managed to secure not one black speaker -- not attendee, speaker.
I notice, for example, a session planned on the impact of the South on US politics. Great and important topic. Hard to discuss it meaningfully without discussing the attitudes of Southern black and white voters toward the role of government and toward each other. Practically cries out for an African-American speaker. Yet they apparently don't have one. It shouldn't have been hard to find one.
Democrats with their antennae finely-tuned may have heard African-Americans in recent years making statements along the lines of "The Democrats take us for granted." This is the sort of thing they are talking about.
In any event, I do offer sincere congratulations on the pulling together of such a learned and renowned collection of speakers. I hope the convention is a HUGE success, and is a key link in the chain of building an enduring left-of-center government for our country. But I also hope all think hard about the implications of what I'm trying to get across here. Because I fear that if the Republicans shift their leadership away from such patently noxious characters as Bush, Cheney, and the Lott/DeLay wing of the party, Democrats will be shocked one day soon to realize that their hold on black voters was more tenuous all along than they had realized.
Update [2006-4-21 18:47:42 by tgnyc]::
Trying to respond to the general zeitgest of the comments pouring forth below.
1) I never accused anybody of excluding anybody. I would never think for a second that blacks or any other group was being "excluded" from the process. This may sound like sophistry, but in this context there is a difference between 'not excluding' and 'including,' with the latter implying ongoing, organic outreach.
2) In citing who had been "invited," I was using as my reference point the list published at the above-linked post, which clearly identifies various people as having been "invited." It now sounds like more than a few African-Americans had been invited without being listed as "invited." Had they been listed among the other "invited" luminaries, I would have never written this diary.
3) Yes, there is more that unites us than divides us, but that doesn't mean blacks don't have unique perspectives on some of the relevant issues that need to be addressed if we as a unit are going to advance toward the broader goal. The Democratic party is a very successful coalition of groups with a common vision. But coalitions, by definition, have discrete members. It is not being divisive to acknowledge such.
4) I hadn't been around kos much during the planning stages, so it is only with yesterday's front-page post that I am first realizing the full nature and scope of the event. And personal finances will keep me from attending this year. But I disagree with suggestions that not volunteering, contributing financially, or attending disqualifies one from making critical observations, or devalues such observations. Particulary when those observations are geared toward a sincere effort to enhance, not tear down, the event.
5)Shooting for more than 1 out of 75 is not, in any meaningful sense, a "quota."
6)Saw lot's of good suggestions for speakers in the comments. And apparently some of them have already been contacted by the organizers. So it doesn't seem like a lack of suggestions should be an obstacle. It sounds more like the response rate for African-American contacts is lower. [That in and of itself is something worth dwelling on. Blacks participate in political panels all the time. So what's going on with the response to YearlyKos?] Also, I guess I imagined that somewhere along the planning process, someone might broadcast a general call along the lines of: 'we're doing a panel on the influence of the South in American poltics, and we'd like to get an African-American perspective, since we imagine that there would be unique qualities to it. Anybody know anyone who would fit the bill?' Something like that. That's all I'm saying.
7)My diary was not an attack on the organizers. I once voluntered to organize a major charity event, featuring more than a few high-profile guests, and representing an organization with much less name recognition among the targeted invitees than Kos has. So I completely understand the amount of work that goes into what Gina and the rest are pulling together. My diary was directed more at the greater Kos community. My point was to get us all to think about how pro-Democrat netroots organizations like ours interact with the African-American community. Even with sincere efforts being put forth, when the marquee annual event for the organization displays (thus far, and as far as anyone knows) only 1 African-American out of 75 invited guests, it sends a message about the nature of that interaction, whether we like it or not.
The event will be great, I have no doubt. And I wish nothing less. I applaud the organizers for what they have accomplished and what they will accomplish.