I thought my point was obvious, but let me explain further: If the guy was a Republican, it’s possible that it would have been simply a partisan ploy. Being that the guy is a Democrat, I think we can dismiss that option out of hand. That leaves only simple racism as the reason on the part of the CBC. Shame on them. They should develop some guidelines for membership, at least, like X% of the Congressman’s constituents are African American.
When oh when, will white people in this country ever get the chance to compete on a level playing field? We shall overcome!
Racism or not, it would just seem to make sense if the majority of the guys constituents are black and he wants to do what’s best for them. It’s not like he’s doing it to prove a point or as a political stunt.
You really think that the majority of the members of the CBC are racist? That is they think that white people are somehow biologically inferior or unworthy of being part of their group purely because they’re white? If I were running the CBC I’d use the criteria you suggest to accept membership, but why I think they should be letting Cohen in, I doubt thier reasons are racist.
Rather I imagine they see having an “all black” group is symbolic, after being completely unempowered in the past, and still having trouble being elected to Congress, that at least some black people are in power and working togeather.
And really it is symbolic, so far as I know Cohen can still vote with the group, sponsor legislation with its members, whatever. Indeed I imagine the point of the CBC is to get non-members to work with them.
I would imagine the group would welcome an ally, but as others have mentioned, there may be symbolic reasons for the group having the membership it does. Perhaps the CBC should explain the rationale for rejecting Cohen’s membership before we start slapping labels like “racist” on them.
Think about it. Maybe Cohen’s aims are legit, but think about the calculating politicos who think it would show how supportive they were of civil rights, etc. if they joined. Pretty soon the CBC is a very different organization than what it was originally intended to be. And it’s likely that it would be worse to admit Cohen as a half-member, excluded from certain conversations and leadership (it’s probably very important for the CBC that the leadership of the CBC, for instance, be Black).
Given the history of institutional racism in this country (and in Congress!) I’m surprised that people can’t understand that there are perhaps legitimate reasons for the CBC to limit its membership to Blacks at this time. Having worked with groups with a political purpose, I respect the fact that some traditionally disempowered (is that a word?) groups might find it important to work in an exclusive group for their purposes. Those outside the group, or belonging to the dominant group might be fantastic allies. I suppose this is a perspective that you either “get” or don’t get. A group of women in a predominantly male organization that wants to remain exclusively female, for instance, would have my support as a male. I would certainly want to support their efforts, but I would also respect their desire to remain all female. (Actually, perhaps the women’s college perspective makes a good analogy.)
There are lots and lots of white people who have been competing on a far lower playing field than the rest of us. The poverty level of some whites in rural Appalachia would astonish even the poorest black person living in a roach infested South Bronx slum. The whites would love to have the roaches to eat. Some of them live with chronic toothache pain from rotten teeth, and some of those die from abscesses. Some of them have not changed clothes literally in months because they don’t have any more. Some seldom if ever bathe because soap making is a learned skill. Many are completely illiterate and have no chance of ever escaping their plight. At least my people have casinos.
It’s fairly basic that in anti-oppression work, if you are a member of the dominant group and you want to work in anti-oppression, that’s fantastic, but you don’t just tromp in and inform the minority as to what you are going to do and just how exactly they are going to support you in doing the work, and complain when you find out that their structures aren’t set up for you. You offer yourself and take your direction from what they need and ask you for.
If this gentleman wants to work in coalition with this group, consult with this group, offer advice and discuss strategy with this group, that’s great. That’s what he should be doing. In fact, that’s what he is doing:
I work in coalition constantly with the Women’s Commission in my party. But I don’t try to force them to admit me into the Women’s Commission. I’m about to age out of the New Democratic Youth, and I’m sad, and I hope to support them frequently in their endeavours, but I’m not going to insist they change their rules to accommodate me. Besides being stupid, those things would be a selfish waste of their time and energy away from anti-oppression work and into pro-accommodating members of the dominant group-work.
Should Pelosi admit atheists into her Faith Working Group?
There are only 6 Representatives who don’t declare a religious affiliation and none that claim to be atheists.
But feel free to ask again when there are some.
I think it is extremely hypocritical. As a white person who attended a predominantly black university for graduate school, and was accosted several times and told, “You don’t belong here!” (there were various other incidents, I posted about a couple years back), it really sickens me that so many black people can be so utterly clueless about this. Of course, they are accustomed to white people falling all over themselves and grovelling pathetically when they trot out the “R” word, yet they should be able to be exclusionist as they want and have all-black groups, work for special privileges, etc. And to think I used to be a liberal about such matters!
That response would have been useful if I’d asked how many atheists there are in Congress. But thanks anyway. 
You asked should she admit athiests. There are none, as I demonstrated, so your question was moot, fatuous and ill-researched. And in answer - no - of course not. Obviously. Athiesm is not a faith.
Before you choke on your pride, let me introduce you to the notions of a hypothetical question and the subjunctive mood of the English language.
Gah. Thank you for the hen’s teeth. 
If that hypothetical atheist represented a district in which concerns of faith was an important part of the political climate, then yes. But then… why would such a district elect an atheist in the first place? :dubious:
I think what some people seem to be missing here is that the caucuses are (or should be) about advancing the needs of the people, not just to be a club for the benefit of the Congressmen themselves.
Because, as atheists here point out often, what religious people do in Congress directly affects their personal lives. If I were an atheist, I’d want my representative to be on top of what Pelosi’s faith committee is doing.
Agreed. That’s why I say the Congressman should be invited to join.
That was my original intention. I’m glad the caucuses exist because there are groups with specific needs that should be addressed through a cohesive unit. Outside of government they are called PACs and lobbyists. Inside of government it is a caucus.
If the women’s caucus is addressing issues of workplace discrimination or reproductive rights, don’t they want men in the group with them as a way of saying, “See! It’s not just women who are concerned about this. Men are concerned and want to help, too!”
If the United Daughters of the Confederacy can admit a black member then I think the Black Caucus could admit a white member!
No, that’s not necessarily true. We’re discussing caucuses of members who share a characteristic and who work on issues relevant thereto. If a member of Parliament from BC wants to talk about issues relevant to Saskatchewan, she doesn’t join the Saskatchewan caucus. That is the group of MPs from Saskatchewan ridings. Likewise, the Black Caucus is apparently not merely the group of congresspeople who have some interest in black issues. It is the group of congresspeople who are black.
Sure, they want men working with them. I work with the Women’s Commission in the Quebec NDP. It does not follow that I ought to be a member of the Women’s Commission. The Women’s Commission is for the women in the party.
I agree there is nothing preventing a white congressman from working with the CBC. However, the goal of this caucus was to ensure that the needs of the black citizens were being addressed with the strength and conviction that an organized group of congressmen can provide, not merely a bunch of people with a common cause. There is a legitimacy provided when you say the, “The 5000 members of the Such-and-such Group oppose global nosepicking,” as opposed to, “5000 individuals signed a petition stating they oppose global nosepicking.” The same way that if Cohen says, “I am working with the CBC to propose…,” doesn’t sound as strong as, “As a member of the CBC, I am proposing…” The first sounds like he needs their help, the second sounds like he is part of the team.
Is that a subgroup of the party or is that a government recognized group? That is the problem I have. If the Black Caucus was a subgroup of the Democratic party (and I’m sure there is a group like that) then fine, they can be black only. But the caucus in question is a recognized by the United States government. The US Government has passed law after law saying that there should be no discrimination. Yet these caucuses are permitted to discriminate on basis of race or gender.
I think its bad form for the CBC to keep people out just because they aren’t black. It sends a unfriendly message and I would think it goes against the best interests of the people whom they are serving, in general terms.
All true. But I bet they were never denied a job or a taxi ride or an apartment lease because of the color of their skin.