"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about
racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the
racist.


But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show me
a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've
expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial
group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you
attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below.


That having been said, I can understand some of the
seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose
is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors
conference are those things specifically related to black
issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip)


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those? Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer. If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around. In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing
in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors
conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one.


Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be
considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites
cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the
country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits would
be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your
indignation again.


What we may find generally attractive in a representative for
the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from
what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of
society and geographical/historical perspective you come from)
find in a representative specific to Black America.


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants? Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is illegal.

And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races? What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)? What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about "Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily
discriminatory, either. (snip)


If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the political
and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same opinion?


What about a sports organization that won't allow women?


Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic, considerations,
Kim. There is a huge difference.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/