• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why not Have a Congressional White Caucus?

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yeah, except any race can join any one of those.

:laugh:

Hoo boy. That was just dumb.

When you have such a large majority as the White folk in Congress has you do not need to worry what anyone's race is ... you know you rule whenever you want. So allowances can be made.

Bro. you are a lousy politician if you do not understand that simple fact.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Crabtownboy, you put up an absolutely idiotic comparison. Don't try and make me the dumb one.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
As I watched with interest, numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus, come to the microphone on Friday, raise their hands and utter the words, "Don't shoot!" I couldn't help but ask, do we have a Gongressional white Caucus, and the answer are "No!"

So why don't we have a Congressional White Caucus? Isn't about time we white folks have a caucus to refute what the CBC does? And while I'm at it, should there not also be a Congressional Asian Caucus? A Congressional Hispanic Caucus? And a Congressional Caucus for Minorities in Congress?

Unfortunately, white privilege keeps causing some of us to ask these same stupid questions. White privilege obviously affords us the luxury of not recognizing that 113 Congresses have been Congressional White Caucuses.


But we all know that this lil rant isn't about what white folks don't have because white folks have the majority of the representation in Congress. Every time such a silly question is asked remember that it is rooted in institutionalized, good ole boy, keep those black people in their place prejudice.

It's like they are challenging the slave masters. They are challenging the people in power by demanding that there be representation for their neighborhoods and the issues that affect them.

And institutionalized white privilege gets upset when its authority and position of power are challenged.

While I am speaking about why we, and other races don't have their own voices heard in Congress, I have to ask when the white folk and Asians and Hispanics are going to have their very own Asian Entertainment Awards? or a White Entertainment Television?

Yep, can't stand to have that white privilege challenged. It obviously helps us to ignore that tv has been White Entertainment TV since its advent. But that good ole boy mentality won't stand for anyone else to have what they've had because it cuts in on their privilege.

I have to wonder why the white women have not yet started their very own network on cable television that is designed specifically for white women, or Asian women, of Hispanic women, or for Pakastani women?


The only way anyone would wonder such a thing would be to ignore that once again white women have been all over network and cable television in starring roles while the only roles women of color were given were as maids and caretakers of somebody else's children.


Are these black only networks in some way disparaging or racially segregating television when it comes to having a channel or award designed specifically for the black woman?

You mean the way that every major network and cable tv channel has done for white people since their beginnings?


I know these other races can start their own networks designed for specific causes and genders, but if they did, would they or could they be seen as racial to the core?

Yes, white privilege is good for trying to pit minorities against one another. Nothing but a ploy to keep power because if the minorities are fighting each other, they won't bother much with the folks who really have the power and are controlling everything.
I was just wondering out loud, and I know that there has to be an audience out there for these unmentioned and under-utilized races and genders, but would they be welcomed by the leader of the black music awards, black women's channels, and black caucus without being called retaliatory racism?

What you need to do is spend some more time with Jesus as your prejudices are escaping the thin veil behind which you've attempted to hide them.
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Applause, ovation and accolades for you!

Unfortunately, white privilege keeps causing some of us to ask these same stupid questions. White privilege obviously affords us the luxury of not recognizing that 113 Congresses have been Congressional White Caucuses.

But we all know that this lil rant isn't about what white folks don't have because white folks have the majority of the representation in Congress. Every time such a silly question is asked remember that it is rooted in institutionalized, good ole boy, keep those black people in their place prejudice.

It's like they are challenging the slave masters. They are challenging the people in power by demanding that there be representation for their neighborhoods and the issues that affect them.

And institutionalized white privilege gets upset when its authority and position of power are challenged.

Yep, can't stand to have that white privilege challenged. It obviously helps us to ignore that tv has been White Entertainment TV since its advent. But that good ole boy mentality won't stand for anyone else to have what they've had because it cuts in on their privilege.


The only way anyone would wonder such a thing would be to ignore that once again white women have been all over network and cable television in starring roles while the only roles women of color were given were as maids and caretakers of somebody else's children.

You mean the way that every major network and cable tv channel has done for white people since their beginnings?

Yes, white privilege is good for trying to pit minorities against one another. Nothing but a ploy to keep power because if the minorities are fighting each other, they won't bother much with the folks who really have the power and are controlling everything.


What you need to do is spend some more time with Jesus as your prejudices are escaping the thin veil behind which you've attempted to hide them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Crabtownboy, you put up an absolutely idiotic comparison. Don't try and make me the dumb one.

It takes no effort on my part.

-----------------------------------------

The Congressional caucus is the White caucus as it is where the White majority keep each other and the others in line with their party politics. That is the primary purpose of the Congressional caucuses.

If Whites were a small minority in Congress, then there would be a White Caucus. Until that time there will not be as there is no need of one with that title.

Elementary my dear Watson.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
If Whites were a small minority in Congress, then there would be a White Caucus. Until that time there will not be as there is no need of one with that title.

Elementary my dear Watson.

The white caucuses are named:

The Senate Republican Caucus
The Senate Democratic Caucus
The House Republican Caucus
The House Democratic Caucus

You said the majority does not need a caucus.
Yet (until 5 Jan 15) the Rep have a majority in the House and the Dems a majority in the Senate. Therefore - according to you - there is no need for them to have a caucus.
Now you owe me Two Mountain Dews

Salty


Hmmm, I wonder if there is a Mt Dew Caucus in Congress?
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You said the majority does not need a caucus.
Yet (until 5 Jan 15) the Rep have a majority in the House and the Dems a majority in the Senate. Therefore - according to you - there is no need for them to have a caucus.
Now you owe me Two Mountain Dews

Salty


Hmmm, I wonder if there is a Mt Dew Caucus in Congress?

Maybe three Mountain Dews.

No, you misunderstand me. They need a caucus to keep everyone in line with party policy. They do not need to formally call it White, but as they are the vast majority and can control the votes, if votes are taken, without calling it the White Caucus.

The minorities need a caucus, with their name, so they can formulate their plans in attempting to influence the BIG caucus ... which is controlled by Whites.

How about a double espresso for me?
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Maybe three Mountain Dews.

No, you misunderstand me. They need a caucus to keep everyone in line with party policy. They do not need to formally call it White, but as they are the vast majority and can control the votes, if votes are taken, without calling it the White Caucus.

The minorities need a caucus, with their name, so they can formulate their plans in attempting to influence the BIG caucus ... which is controlled by Whites.

How about a double espresso for me?

Give it up. It was an idiotic comparison. You're just making it worse. :sleeping_2:
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Maybe three Mountain Dews.

No, you misunderstand me. They need a caucus to keep everyone in line with party policy. They do not need to formally call it White, but as they are the vast majority and can control the votes, if votes are taken, without calling it the White Caucus.

The minorities need a caucus, with their name, so they can formulate their plans in attempting to influence the BIG caucus ... which is controlled by Whites.

How about a double espresso for me?

that MIGHT be true - if there are NO minorities in the "White" Caucus"

This downgrades you to a single espresso
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
that MIGHT be true - if there are NO minorities in the "White" Caucus"

This downgrades you to a single espresso

White privilege is about power and authority. One lone black congressperson wouldn't warrant much attention as he couldn't really influence anyone much to do anything. But throw 40+ congressmen and women in front of anywhere, and they'll get an audience.

Since the white caucus wasn't addressing the legislative concerns of black people, they formed a caucus that would.
confused0082.gif


Should only the concerns of the "white caucus" be addressed? That was primarily the case prior to the creation of the BCC in 1971.

You think there was a lot of people in the Congress during the Jim Crow era and before addressing issues that positively affected black communities?
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
White privilege is about power and authority. One lone black congressperson wouldn't warrant much attention as he couldn't really influence anyone much to do anything. But throw 40+ congressmen and women in front of anywhere, and they'll get an audience.

Since the white caucus wasn't addressing the legislative concerns of black people, they formed a caucus that would.
confused0082.gif


Should only the concerns of the "white caucus" be addressed? That was primarily the case prior to the creation of the BCC in 1971.

You think there was a lot of people in the Congress during the Jim Crow era and before addressing issues that positively affected black communities?

Yawn! :sleeping_2:
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
White privilege is about power and authority. One lone black congressperson wouldn't warrant much attention as he couldn't really influence anyone much to do anything. But throw 40+ congressmen and women in front of anywhere, and they'll get an audience.
...

CongressWomen are in the White Male Caucus ? Maybe females should have their own Caucus?

Wow another Mt Dew
 
Top