From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:41:37 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <1992Apr9.085839.9356@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:
>
>	Well, Leon, he has one.  I don't necessarily agree with all of his
>examples, but I agree with his main point.  Before you turn on your
>flamethrower, which seems to be on automatic, read the following point, in
>response to something you said, and really THINK about it.

Well which of his statements do you agree with?
1) Carol Moselely Braun is a racist sexist Hitlerite
2) The league of Women Voter's is sexist
3) The organization of Black students and the women's union are
discrimnatory (but the Jewish and Korean students organization are not)
4) I probably support the KKK
5) The reason Braun hasn't been criticized publically is because people
are following the Nazi party line.
6) "What's a black church?"
7) "Did Martin Luther King preach racial intolerance?"
8) Carol Moseley Braun is the moral equivalent of David Duke
9) The league of women voters is the moral equivalent of the KKK.

Don't you think flames are appropriate?

He also said that Braun was sexist and racist because she was targetting
voters.  I explained how Clinton, Brown, Bush, and Tsongas all target
black and women voters.  He criticized none of them.  

>LG: What's your problem with her? [meaning Carol Moseley Braun]

>TP: She's a racist and sexist bigot.

>	Supposedly, according to Terry, she made a statement along the lines
>that (I don't have an exact quote) "I will represent the people of Illinois,
>especially blacks and women".  This is a racist and sexist statement, whether
>or not she said it, which is a different point.  Assume that she did for the
>current argument.  You do not seem to recognize this as a racist and sexist
>statement because it is PC racism and sexism (it's PC to be against white
>males).

I do have the exact quote, and I posted it.  And it said something like 
"I will represent the whole state, but especially African Americans,
Women AND WORKING PEOPLE"

Most working people are white! Most working people are males!  The leader
ship of the labor union is pretty much all white males.  She's not 
opposed to white males. She married one!  Working people make up a majority
of the people in the country.

I already said this.  This was not responded to AT ALL.  He is ignoring
what was my exact quote, in order to hold on to his to his view.

What she is saying is that the Senate is made up of independently wealthy
white males.  Society is not.  The Senate is not made up of a cross
section of our society, but a very small section.
This is Jerry Brown's point.  That the government does not represent the
people, but a very small part of it.
I am not a millionaire.  Braun is more like me than Dixon is.
And I'm a white male!

>	Suppose Dixon had said "I will represent the people of Illinois,
>especially white men".  I'm pretty sure, from reading your posts, you
>would be climbing flagpoles to proclaim that we have a sexist and racist
>Senator, because he is favoring a group based on race and sex.

Suppose Dixon had said this and the Senate was 98 percent black female.
Then he would have a valid point.  You have to remember which job she
is running for.  But 'especially white men' are over represented, if
you look at who runs campaigns, who contributes to campaigns, etc.
If Dixon were to the the first white male in history to be a senator,
it would be different.
The government is supposed to represent the people.  It doesn't.

Many times I have been the ONLY white person in a group of blacks.
(I played in a blues band).  In these cases, the black people had to 
explain to me how they weren't racist, and that they accepted white people.  
And I was a bit of an oddity.  

>	I believe Terry's point is, "What's the difference?"

The difference is that the Senate has only 2 women and no blacks.
That is the difference.  If Braun had said the same thing, and the
Senate was 50-50 male/female and 80-20 white black, then I would
consider that she was playing racial politics.  
And it's not a question of quotas or affirmitive action.  The question
is the same Jerry Brown is asking.  
"Is the government made up of people like you and me?"
No, most people are not white male millionaires.  It's that simple.


>	Now, whether or not she said this I am not sure.  I seem to remember
>you (LG) posting a quote from her that said this, when you were saying there is
>nothing racist or sexist in her statements.  If you didn't, I apologize for my
>mistaken memory.  It was a long time ago in a tiring, and boring, flame war.

>LG: You have called the League of Women's Voters, Carol Moseley Braun,
>LG: and NAACP racist and sexist.  


>	Again, please think about the following before flaming.  I will not say
>anything about the League of Women Voters (no "'s" after "Women") because I am
>not fluent with what they do very much.  But lets look at NAACP, as I know the
>basic idea, and it's easier to explain.
They sponsor the debates between the candidates. I'm sure you've seen the
debates before.  They also serve as election judges to make sure people
count the votes correctly.  


>	If I give money to the NAACP to use in their scholorship program, who
>will they give the money to?  I think it is a good bet (100% is pretty good)
>that they will give it to a black student.  There may be white students that
>are more needy than the black student it goes to, but nevertheless, it will go
>to the black student.

First of all, you are confusing the NAACP with the United Negro College Fund.
The NAACP is one of the oldest civil rights organization in the country,
and has fought against segregation and discrimination.
Neither you or the other person really know what you are talking about.

>	Why?  Because he's black, of course ('colored' in the 50's style of the
>name).

>	Sounds like the only factor affecting the decision is the color of the
>student.  That seems pretty racist to me.

Then don't give money to them.  Give it to a group that gives scholarships
for Polish people, Italian people, Jewish people, if you want.
Or give it to a group that gives based on something else.
Your missing the point that as a group, there are less black college students,
and more of them drop out.  And part of the reason is that blacks were
denied opportunities in the past.  Don't you think that this should be
corrected?  Is it racist to say that blacks were mistreated in the past,
and if you want to help make up for it, you can contribute to the fund?
  
>	Suppose I start a program to give scholorships to only white students,
>no matter who is more deserving.  I'll avoid the NAAWP name, because it already
>exist, and is associated with the KKK, which I agree is a racist organization. 
>Think of whatever name you want, but the whole point of the organization is to
>give scholorships to only white students (but, of course, anyone can join my
>organization, just as anyone can join the NAACP).

>	Is my organization racist?  I would think so, and I believe you would
>think so as well.

What is the purpose of YOUR organization?  The purpose of the funds that
give to black students is to help bring the black community up to that of
the rest of the community in terms of the # of college graduates, etc.
The purpose is to make society more equal.  
The purpose of your organization seems to be to perpetuate inequality.
Now, if it went to people of Apalachia, or poor white, that would be
something different.  For years, the scholarship funds were only for
white students.  


>	To set your mind at ease, I do not support racist organizations, so I
>wouldn't start one of my own, nor will I ever contribute to the NAACP.  If
>there was a non-racist NAAP, though, with no color (or sex) specified, I would
>contribute.
But the NAACP is not a college fund.  It's a civil rights organization.

>	Again, what's the difference between my organization and the NAACP? 
>None, all we've done is to apply a photographic negative, and reverse the
>color.

No.  You are just wrong.  Were you forbidden to live in certain neighborhoods?
Did you have to sit on the back of the bus?  Did they turn firehoses on
you when you peacefully marched?  Did the Klan lynch you, with the help of
the police?  Were you prevented from voting?  Were you forced to go to
inferioir schools?
That is what the NAACP dealt with, it's a civil rights organization.
And what the NAACP helped accomplish also makes other forms of discrimination
easier to fight.
What are the problems that your organization are here to address, and what
is it's vision?

>	So, Leon, I ask you, why isn't the NAACP racist?  

Because it's intention was to pass legislation that REMOVED color barriors,
and to fight for fairness and an end to discrimination.  That's why.
It's agenda is anti-racist.  That's the historical reason.
It arose in a context of a segregated society.
	Now, if you want to say that the NAACP supports affirmative
action, and that AA is racist, then you have an argument.  But that is
not why the NAACP was formed, and AA is a recent development.

>	I believe it was in CA (I may be wrong here) that some students took
>the Charter of the Registered Student Organization "The Organization of
>Hispanic Engineers" and replaced "Hispanic" with "White", and then submitted it
>to the University to register their own organization.  As in the original, it
>was stated explicitly that anyone may join, regardless of race.
>	Guess what happened.  The University refused to accept it, as they
>would not allow a "racist organization".
>
>	Certainly makes one wonder, eh?

The term "White" has been used to exclude minorities.   ("Whites only")
And "White" is not an ethnicity:  Polish, Italian, Spanish, Russian,
German...these are ethnicity.  I don't like being referred to by 
black people as "white."  I'm Jewish.  

If they had a group to "promote Russian culture," I understand that.
What does it mean to "promote White culture?"  What is the purpose of
a "white" group?  Usually when people put the word "white" in the title
of their organization, what they want is to turn the clock back 40 years
on civil rights.   The people who spoke about "white people" and "white
power" were the same ones who opposed civil rights, opposed desegregation,
etc.  Look at David Duke.  

Do you have no conception of what it's like to be a minority?
Don't you think that people in minority groups should be allowed to get
together and talk about what it's like, or be in a place where they are
the majority, or don't have to deal with people who are anti-them?
My high-school was 4% Jewish.  Do you have any appreciation of this?

Does the school already have a number of groups who are a majority white?
Then why another one?  
What's the point of putting 'white' in the title?
What is the purpose of the organization?

>Ray Swartz
>*****************************PC sig follows*************************************
>Of course I'm a white male, which automatically makes me a sexist, racist
>warmongering, oppressor that keeps the Third World enslaved in my garage.
>Come on by, sometime, and I'll show you how my mansion is built on a foundation
>made of the bones of minorities.  Ignore the fact that I have no more voice in
>government than you do, as you've already made up your mind about me anyway.
>********************************************************************************

I am a white male, and no, and that fact does not make either you or me
a sexist, racist, warmongering, opressor that keeps the Third World enslaved
in my garage.  
You have the same voice in goverment I do.  Actually, you can increase
your voice in goverment by 
1) writing letters
2) making phone calls
3) sending telegrams
4) joining lobbies
5) sending money to PAC's
6) voting
7) working on campaigns
8) circulatin petitions

If you are a student, there is a national student's lobby.

If you want to increase your voice you can do that.  But I don't think 
that criticizing the NAACP will increase your voice.

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.