The difference lies only in perception. Blacks, as a race, have historically been kept down. Although they now arguably have equal opportunity in this country, they struggle to achieve equal results. Thus, The Conservative Brotherhood is an underdog group trying to better themselves. "The White Conservative Brotherhood" would be seen as trying to push others down. When you're on the bottom, trying to better yourself is seen as being admirable. But when you are perceived as being on the top, trying to better yourself is only seen as an attempt to widen the chasm between you and those below.

In a perfect world, we'd all start on the same footing, and self-betterment would be universally admired. It is a shame that those who are part of a group that is supposedly better off are prevented from having feelings of pride or identity. Think of the word "ethnic." When people use that word, they are referring to someone who isn't white. He's not a member of a race, he's just regular... bland.

I really wish white people would stop assuming that pride in their race means they are racist, or that they were slave owners in a past life. Have a little confidence! Just stay away from white bedsheets...

First, the group is not calling itself "Black Conservative Bloggers." It was conceived as an alliance of conservative blacks who want to get together to discuss strategies to reach some of the 90 percent of blacks who vote for Democrats. We seek to urge them to think critically. Our "old school values" are part of the reason we decided to come together as a group. Just as others have done, we may decide to do a group blog.

Second, I disagree with most of Mark J.'s comment. Our group is not an "underdog group trying to better" ourselves and we definitely don't consider ourselves on the bottom of anything. Comments such as these are part of the reason I became a conservative. And I wouldn't perceive a "white conservative brotherhood" as trying to push me down. Such comments are dripping with condescending liberalism. Black conservatives, unlike blacks who'll vote for the likes of John Kerry, don't think that way and resent those who think we do.

The only part I agree with is "pride in your race." I've been to the sites of several white racialists and I agree with some of what they stand for. For the last 30 or so years, the "dead white males" and western civilization in general have taken a beating from politically correct ideologues pushing their utopian Marxist vision on the rest of us. Some folks are just fed up, that's all.

Mark, I suggest you read my blog so you can get a better idea of who I am. Your comments reflect little understanding of conservatives.

I think Mark may have been talking about the mainstream perception and not necessarily endorsing it. The first and last sentences of his first paragraph give some reason to think that.

You're exactly right, JD.

I forgot to add that I believe in freedom of association as long as you're not breaking laws. Gathering exclusively with same-race people isn't illegal. Gathering exclusively with same-sex people isn't illegal. Gathering exclusively with same-party people isn't illegal, and so on.

Now discimination is something different. Goverment and certain employment discrimination is illegal; social discrimination is not. We discriminate all the time. The concept itself isn't inherently wrong, but it can be abused. But don't worry. With race preferences firmly in place for at least 25 more years, most employers are afraid not to hire blacks because of threats of lawsuits.

I guess I wasn't explicit: I have no desire to violate the rights of white people to gather exclusively. It's discriminatory but not in a perjorative sense, in my opinion. I don't think they're racist or even bigots, necessarily. I've thought that way since becoming a conservative. I'll tell you this, it is very liberating.

Interesting questions and spot on observations from JD and LaShawn. The answer to your question JD is, no, it is not racist. But would be perceived as such because of the race that did it, this case being white people. That, sadly, is the society we live in. In response to Mark J's statements, I beleive a person's lot in life falls more in line with "have and have not's," not race. But being a "have not" is no excuse no to succeed. I don't think being successful means being a millionaire, however it would be nice.

Mitch Mays

You see, it's only from a politically correct viewpoint that discrimination (choosing one's friends) is a negative concept. Political correctness is poison. It is killing our freedoms. I will never stop saying that.

La Shawn hit the nail on the head when she said; "We discriminate all the time. The concept itself isn't inherently wrong, but it can be abused.".

But, I think there is a little from all the comments which answers JD's initial question.

If I understand you correctly JD, you are asking why can most any other group of individuals form a group exclusive to themseleves, and "white males" can't.

On the face of it you might think it is a racist *thang*, but, (and this is where Debs comment comes in) it isn't.

Because of left leaning and other activist groups, co-opting the idea of "political correctness", and their creating (or enhancing) of victims. Victimisation, be it by class, cause, or race, has been one of, if not THE rallying cry of the left.
Add these things together and by the stanards of the left, of course "The hispanic lettus growers of California" can form a group/club/union. They are made by the left and their media cohorts, to be seen or perceived as victims and in "need" of "protection" from those "in power" (ie: white male establishment).
So though there is no law that says we can't form a "white male conservative" club. The pressure from the left and activist groups would be busy placing lables on the club and its members, if for no other reason, than trying to maintain the preception of "these are the ones that have the control and power that you do not".

Now I have tossed on my .75 cents, feel free to rip me asunder

Great comments! I would never form a whites-only club for several reasons but one of them would be that it would be widely viewed as being racist, even if it wasn't.
I haven't yet heard the rationale that it's okay for people of different colors to form exclusive clubs because they've been "oppressed" while it isn't for whites because they've been the oppressors and have no need for such clubs. I'm glad I haven't heard that rationale, although there might be someone out there willing to offer it up...if you feel that way, now is your chance!
-jdm.

Rip you asunder? That's a little difficult to do when I agree with you.
-Jim.

The title "Conservative White Bloggers" is simply an example. My strictly hypothetical group could be called anything but still be defined as a white-only group. The fact that the "Brotherhood" is defined as an exclusively African-American group is what I was getting at.
As far as I can tell, no one's answered my question. Why is it not discrimination for an exclusively African American group to form while it would be considered racist for an exclusive Caucasian group?
It looks like Mark attempted an answer but LaShawn seems to reject it. Unless I'm wrong it looks like LaShawn doesn't think an all-white group would necessarily be considered discrimination. (in the perjorative sense)
-jdm.

If we started a conservative club with a batch of white males it wouldn't stay a white male conservative club for very long. Conservatism, by it's very nature of concentrating on individuals rather than groups, is incompatible with racism.
A long about the third meeting a question would come up about the Air Force, we'd just naturally ask Julliette of Baldilocks fame. Or we'd have some other question and ask Jennifer Martinez. We'd be arguing about the gang problem and want S-Train's experience. Racism is inherently collectivist in nature, it puts people into groups regardless of any other quality. A conservative club, with it's emphasis on individualism would stay white male only until it's members found someone who isn't a white male that would add value to the club.
I can see the need for The Brotherhood given the way that black conservatives seem to be ostracized within their own community although as the numbers of black conservatives grows I suspect the need will diminish eventually.

The answer, JD, is that it is equally racist (or harmless) for blacks to separate themselves from whites as it is for whites to separate themselves from blacks. Either we all live by the same standard or we live by none at all. Sadly, in our time, we do not all live by the same standards. Our collective cultural moraltiy is proof that we instead live by no standards at all.

I support the right of a group of black conservatives to exclude whites. I just wish they wouldn't piss and moan every time two white guys have an idea.

Attention black Americans: Two white males shaking hands is not a clan rally!

henerd: You're missing the point. You're not going to find too many black conservatives who'd complain about that. I really wish folks would take the time to find out about others before making blanket statements about an entire race.

Without reading any of the involved comments here, the simple answer is really embedded in the question and in fact it maps quite handily.

When it comes to race in American, White is not the mirror image of Black.

Why did Irish become White? Because American laws and conventions which were racially exclusive of non-whites made it in all ways advantageous to be white. What 'acting white' is really all about is using the force of law and society to racially exclude all the goods from non-whites. This is the very definition of white supremacy and as a historical fact, it is not open to interpretation. I have and continue to urge Americans who thoughtlessly consider themselves to be 'white' to rethink that racial identity. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the Civil Rights Movement was to the legal definition of 'white' what the battle of Gettysburg was to the definition of the Confederacy. Obviously we have stragglers.

On the other hand, 'black' was an intellectual creation of the American Negro to rethink their racial identity, the primary point of which was to escape the narrowly defined humanity of Negro life. The creation of 'black' was about self-sufficiency, and creating freedom.

Of course 'black' wasn't perfected in a day and a lot of threads went wrong. Black muslims in the Nation of Islam became separatists. Black 'hard' afrocentrists and melanists became black supremacists, although they were never violent, they were dead wrong.

There are still cultural and class battles raging over the proper provenance of 'Black'. It's not finished. Vulgar hiphoppers who 'keep it real' suggest that they are the true heirs to blackness. Old bitter marxist professors claim that theirs is the true black politics. Cosby and those of us in the Conservative Brotherhood don't beg, but we differ.

The bottom line is that there is much to be proud of from the days people first uttered 'Black is beautiful' and 'I'm black and I'm proud', and black conservatives are all about conserving and representing that.

As for the Conservative Brotherhood, we exist as a group to get our messages out. Some of these messages are those that we've long held, others are works in progress. But we are highlighting our distinctions and making something of it.

Secondly, I would ask of the group blogs with which any of you are familiar, how many of them are anything but 'all white'. The Volokh Conspiracy is not a theoretical group.

Which brings me to another nit which in a younger, more intemperate person might cause a bit of screaming. But it is a very tired logical fallacy I've encountered time after time in my duty as a 'race man'. But I'll abstract it and leave the application as an exercise.

The couple on Maple Street believe the world to be X and have decided for Y reasons not to have a baby. The couple on Spring street believe the world to be A and have decided for B reasons to have a baby. The Spring street couple announces the birth of their baby and for some bizarre reason the Maple Street couple protests, complete with a harangue about their Y reasons.

Stop spitting on my baby.

I don't think anyone was spitting on your baby. I think the question posed was why some people would complain about us having a baby as well. Maybe more specifically, why it's appropriate for the existance of separate groups to name themselves as a "black" group... but other groups if they name themselves as "white" are scorned.

Like I said, it all goes back to the liberal/socialist ideal of political correctness. It creates hatred. It enforces the grouping of people by their differences. It's poison and there is no room for it amongst intelligent people.

I think that the only way to understand why black folks are black is to ask, and the literature is a reference. If nobody has the courage to ask, if PC intimidates you, then you can't rightly complain if you don't understand.

A proper multicultralism is an open invitation to check out the literature and read it critically. So I'd say I'm black in the way Brent Staples is black or in the way that Zadie Smith is black. You might say you're white in the way Flannery O'Conner is white or in the way the character Holden Caufield is. Nobody is saying that only blackfolks should read black literature.

Nobody is forced to identify with Bigger Thomas. If you're a man and that's how you feel, then that's how you feel. Nobody is forced to identify with Lady Chatterly. If you're a woman and that's how you feel, there's no coersion involved. So PC is just an excuse to go 12 inches beyond stereotypes and say that's it, but if that is the full extent of the measure of someone's character then just move on.

I haven't had whitefolks tell me - hey I'm going to have a white author's reading group. I just keep hearing about these theoretical proposals and these frightening demonic forces of PC. But if you really have a need, what's really stopping you? And the example I give is with the Confederate Battle Flag. Southerners who really feel the need to honor and revere that tradition because it's part of their identity have no problem whatsoever standing up for their beliefs. So I don't really see what the fuss is over political correctness.

As for why black groups formed, again I think the good ones do a good job answering the question. You simply have to ask.

I would also point out that recent history (although I don't generally follow this stuff as closely as I used to) would suggest that it's not white groups (which, anyway?) that are getting scorned as racist, but groups like MEChA.

So you then have the conflict between self-help and dainty folks saying that they feel left out. So now that there is no focus on MEChA, ie no political points to score in the California Gub race, who among the whitefolks complaining about their charter has taken up a multiracial banner to address the problems MEChA chapters were organized to deal with?

I understand the theoretical complaint because it sounds like a lack of evenhandedness. But when it comes down to practical matters, white clubs don't organize, and multiethnic clubs don't spring up to take over the duties of ethnic clubs.

I went over this matter before on the Black Bloggers thread and I suggested that anyone who wasn't prepared to write at least a 1000 word essay about what it means to be white was incompetent to judge or second guess what blackfolks think about themselves. The challenge stands.

There's about 22 trackbacks on that one.
http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/000695.html