From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun (was Re: Women in Politics)
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.184137.29807@midway.uchicago.edu>, gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:

>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?

	Leon, try to stick with the point.  I explained in the post that
followed the above excerpt what I agreed with.  You still have your
flamethrower on automatic.  Try to engage your brain.

	I'll try again to enlighten you.  Unless you try to use some of those
grey cells in your reply (and I know you must have some, at least one, please),
I'll not waste my time against your rhetoric again.


>>	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.

	Right.  So she included working people.  The point is, she specifically
identified people by their color and sex.  "Working people" is not racist or
sexist because there is no race or sex identified.  But when she said
"expecially women", she is giving preferential treatment based on sex.  When
she included "expecially blacks", she was being preferential based on color.  I
can't believe you can't see this.



>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.

	Well, as I said, unless you care to actually make intelligent instead
of kneejerk responses, I will not respond either.  I prefer intelligent
discourse, not screaming back and forth.


>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!

	Oh, so your saying that the only way to represent women is to be a
woman?  The only way to represent blacks is to be black?  That sounds pretty
exclusionary to me.
	Or are you saying that it's ok to be sexist and racist, if you are
going against the status quo?  I base my judgements of such things on what they
actually are, I don't for historical justification.  It sounds like you would
be all for discrimination against Egyptians, because of the historical fact
that they discriminated against (presumably) your ancestors oh so many
thousands of years ago.


>>	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.

	Oh, so it's ok to be sexist and racist if it's against the status quo? 
You've explained yourself fully, now.  "Well, of course, if blacks and women
were the majority, what she said would be racist and sexist, but since they
aren't, she wasn't."  This is one of those "Only whites can be racist" crap
arguments.


>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.  

	Why did they have to "explain" it to you, did you go in there with your
current attitude, that since you were the minority in the band, they were
racist and you weren't?  I don't assume things about people I don't know as you
seem to.



>>	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.  

	Again you are saying "because of history, it's ok for her to be racist
and sexist".


>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.

	And if the government were mostly black, it would be made up of black
millionares.  Still nothing like you and me. Look at Gus Savage.  So what's
your point.


>>	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.  

	So you've said.  But let's stick to the point.


>>	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.

	Excuse my late-at-night posting (hell, it was 5 a.m.) for the
confusion.  I was of course, talking about the UNCF.  So it's the UNCF that's
racist.


>>	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.

	I told you who I would give money to, a fund based on only need,
regardless of pedigree.  This doesn't make the UNCF any less racist, as well as
the funds for "Polish people, Italian people, or Jewish people".


>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?

	"In the past...In the past..."  When, oh when are you ever going to
live in the present.  The past is the past, and I can't change it.  Do you
think that society would finally be equal if whites were the slaves of blacks,
to make up for the past you speak of so much?  Is that your Utopian, equal
society?


>>	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.  

	Define, please "more equal".  I only recognize "inequal", admittedly
the current state, and "equal", which is how I treat people.  You want to
perpetuate racisism to make things "more equal".  It seems to me like your
"more equal" is the same old shit, with different people on top.


>The purpose of your organization seems to be to perpetuate inequality.

	Wrong.  Since blacks have a current advantage with the UNCF that
whites do not, I would try to make it equal.  Personally, I went to school on
student loans, which are given regardless of race.  Oh how I wished I could
have checked the "black" square and not be caught, to turn the UNCF racism
against them, end equal the unequal opportunities to financial aid.
	

>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.  

	As I was saying, my fictional organization would be need based, going
to white students, just as the UNCF goes to black students.


[some examples of past injustices deleted]
>Did they turn firehoses on
>you when you peacefully marched?

	This was done to whites, too, in this country.  Look at the Union riots
of the 30s.  In fact, the tanks-rolling-over-the-marchers event in China had
it's very similar parallels in this country in the 20s-30s, in Washington D.C.,
when WWI vets marched to try to get the vetran's benefits that were promised
them.  The government called out the army, and crushed the demonstration.
Kent State - the four students killed were white.  Do you need more examples?


>	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.

	Well, I was telking aobut the UNCF, and calling it the wrong name.
	The NAACP may be all you said it is, removing color barriers, and such. 
these are admirable goals, as long as they do not try to start to recreate old
injustices in a new direction.  Since AA is a recent development, then the
NAACP must only be "recently racist".


>>	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.  

	Then can't one say the "African" is not an ethnicity?  There are
Egyptians, Lybians, Ethiopians, The various tribes of what are commonly called
"black", which I am not familiar with, Zimbabweans, and so on, and so on. 
There are also several subgroups of the group "Hispanic".  So why is "Hispanic"
ok and "white" isn't.
	I thought that (according to a Jewish friend of mine) "Jewish" is a
religion, and not a race.  He was quite adamant about that point.


>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?

	To give white engineers a group of their own, to have something to so
on Tuesday nights?  The group was obviously formed as a test of the University,
and they failed.  Who are you to say that their purpose isn't good enough?


>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.  

	"Usually when..."  You are appealing to the past, again.  Try living in
the present.


>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?


	Why shouldn't anyone be able to get together and discuss what it's like
to them, regardless of race or sex?  Why shouldn't the majority, as well as the
minority.  Being a member of the majority doesn't automatically give me a
solid gold tea kettel and a yacht.  I've worked for everything I have.  In
college I had to hold a full time job, as well as taking 28 credits a term, to
make it through.
	Yeah, I feel like I'm in the minority a lot lately, like I'm one of the
very few people that actually THINKS about things, and isn't just a kneejerk
reactionist.  Also, don't try to be in a university setting and actually
believe that the Second Amendment belongs in the Constitution, you'll be looked
at strangely by everyone.  At times I feel I'm the only non-Catholic in the
world.  Where I grew up, I'd never even seen a Catholic church, and now
people expect me to be familiar with a lot of (to me) very strange behavior at
weddings, as if such customs are universal.
	Since you're Jewish, Leon, you might understand this.  Try going to a
Catholic wedding sometime, and watch the customs that are practiced.  I'm not
Jewish, but judging from the comments of a friend of mine who is, and recently
went to one of these weddings, we had about the same level of confusion.


>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?

	It was obviously a test of the the University's "non-discrimination"
policy.  They failed the test.  Again, you are saying that it's ok to be racist
against the majority.  That's still racism in my book.


>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.

	Nor does criticizing my fictional organization, or the "Society of
White Engineers" increase yours.


Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: soc.women