atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#242: Well well well.

Suppose I told you that there was an organization which excluded members based on their race. Suppose they wouldn't allow any black people in, and the black man who tried to join, and was rebuffed, said, ""I think they're real happy I'm not going to join. It's their [organization] and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

Racism is not the problem in the US that it once was. There are all sorts of laws against discrimination based on race; and even organizations which are not subject to those laws tend to obey them. Failure to toe that line can result in censure, lawsuit, boycott, or worse.

We live in an era where the Boy Scouts are categorized as a "hate group" for exercising their right to freedom of association as defined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Boy Scouts are a "hate group" because they won't let openly gay men be Scoutmasters, because the leaders of that organization has real trouble with the idea of leaving young impressionable boys in the care of men who might find them sexually attractive. (We don't let heterosexual men be in charge of Girl Scouts, do we?)

We live in an era where women force their way into any and every activity, club, or organization which has traditionally excluded them. This is seen as "progressive". The Army has to lower its standards of physical training in order for women to pass muster, but this is seen as a blow for "gender equality" rather than a potential weakening of the armed forces. Fortunately, the US military is so technologically advanced, the lack of raw physical strength can be adjusted for. Still, don't expect to see a female SEAL or Army Ranger any time soon. (Demi Moore notwithstanding.)

The point is, the heterosexual white male has had to bow to pressure--most of it perfectly justifiable!--to allow minorities and women "in". There's nothing wrong with this; anyone who thinks that skin color is an automatic indicator of anything is a neanderthal--and while women lack the raw physical strength of men, they have other capabilities, and there's nothing wrong with their brains. Many things a man can do, a woman can; and the reverse is true.

But my little "supposition" at the beginning of this entry? It was prompted by this article.

A white man wanted to be in the Congressional Black Caucus, and was rebuffed...because he is not black.

Are the members of the Congressional Black Caucus really committed to the idea of integration and desegregation? It seems to me that they are not really interested in a "colorblind" society; rather they seem interested in making sure that their "black-ness" remains a viable political commodity.

(By the way, no black Republican need apply for membership of the Congressional Black Caucus, either. They should call themselves the "Congressional Black Liberal Democrat Caucus".)

These people, who love to cite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's speeches and civil rights efforts, don't seem to recall that his message was about making our society not care about skin color.

I don't think the Congressional Black Caucus is interested in getting rid of racism--not when they are practicing it themselves.
Subscribe

  • #7607: Oh, yeah

    Had another opportunity today to play Pat Metheney's "Spring Ain't Here", because it snowed for most of the morning. But yeah, "global warming"…

  • #7606: LOOTING IS NOT PROTEST

    Some fatuous pinhead on the radio said that Chicago was ready for "looting and other forms of protest". But you know what? It's fine. We no longer…

  • #7605: I don't even need lettuce any longer

    See, the tacos I make at home blow away any tacos I've ever had anywhere else. Lettuce used to be necessary, but now it just gets in the way, so I…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments