top
Racial Justice
Racial Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Letter to the CBC - Nader asks for apology for "obscene racist epithet" made at meeting

by repost
Nader: "Can you imagine if the Abolitionist Party was told not to run against the pro-slavery Whigs and Democratic Parties in the 1840s!"
Nader For President 2004
P.O. Box 18002 - Washington, DC 20036 - http://www.VoteNader.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Further Information:
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Kevin Zeese 202-265-4000

In a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus: Nader asks for an apology for "obscene racist epithet" made at CBC meeting.

Nader Further Asks: "can you imagine if the Abolitionist Party was told not to run against the pro-slavery Whigs and Democratic Parties in the 1840s!"

July 13, 2004

Congressman Elijah Cummings
Chair--Congressional Black Caucus
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Cummings:

Your invitation to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus came to my attention from the media well before it was received in the mail. You will recall that I called you to say that, if the media reports were accurate about the CBC wanting to meet in order to demand withdrawal, that it would not warrant getting together. You assured me that though you could not guarantee what the members would say, you were the moderator and would control the meeting so that other important topics could be discussed. Fair enough.

I arrived during a torrential rain storm a little late which did not deter a friendly statement by Congressman John Conyers, who expressed his agreement with all our groups he has worked with in the past, yet added his reservations about the Nader/Camejo candidacy. It was downhill after that, with an increasing crescendo, from one speaker to another, dismissing my respectful and deliberate disagreement with the approach that there is only one way to defeat George W. Bush (by a Party that has been losing local, state, and federal elections to the worst of the Republican Party for the past ten years). At one point even you dropped your moderator mantel and urged withdrawal. At that point I said to myself--imagine not much more than one generation ago, whites were telling African-Americans not to run, not to vote. You see Congressman Cummings, do argue, oppose, and challenge vigorously, but unless you wish to tell someone not to speak, not to petition, not to assemble--which is exactly what running for office comprises--please don't tell anyone to withdraw and not run. Shades of the social justice third parties in the 19th century which moved the agendas critical to our country - can you imagine if the Abolitionist Party was told not to run against the pro-slavery Whigs and Democratic Parties in the 1840s! The U.S. Constitution does not prescribe or even describe a political duopoly where voters are only allowed two choices and increasingly through redistricting etc. protect one dominant Party’s incumbent.

Before the meeting, I had expected a discussion of subject matter ranging from strategies to defeat Bush together, to how the spillover vote in Congress from Nader/Camejo could tip the scales in close races for the progressive candidates (note how close the swing election races were in 2002) and end Republican control of the House or Senate, to examining why other drives for justice have not been able to overcome the opposition of corporate forces, e.g., racial profiling, taboos such as the failed war on drugs, or the commercial exploitation of low income areas, environmental racism and cash-register politics. I also wished to discuss what Reverend Jesse Jackson told me, a few days earlier, that he did not think the Democratic Party was actively trying to register millions of African-American voters, or what Bishop Desmond Tutu replied when I asked him what he would want me to raise regarding U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, in any CBC meeting.

Instead, exclamations at the meeting descended into vituperative, (e.g., Congresswoman Kilpatrick’s tawdry, anatomical comment yelled loud enough so the press could hear it outside) and ending with the obscene racist epithet repeated twice by Yale Law School alumnus Congressman Melvin Watt of North Carolina. One member of your Caucus called to apologize for the crudity of some of the members. I had expected an expression of regret or apology from Congressman Watt in the subsequent days after he had cooled down. After all there was absolutely no vocal or verbal provocation from me or from my associates, including Peter Miguel Camejo, to warrant such an outburst. In all my years of struggling for justice, especially for the deprived and downtrodden, has any legislator--white or black--used such language?

I do not like double standards, especially since our premise for interactions must be equality of respect that has no room, as I responded to Mr. Watt, for playing the race card. Therefore, just as African-Americans demanded an apology from Agriculture Secretary Earl Butts and Senator Trent Lott--prior to their resignation and demotion respectively--for their racist remarks, I expect that you and others in the Caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt. Please consider this also my request for such an expression--a copy of which is being forwarded directly to Mr. Watt's office.

Attached are the exact words of Congressman Watt's loud remarks, as heard by all in the meeting room without anyone admonishing him. In fact, some members rather enjoyed what he said judging by their outward demeanor.

I hope to hear from you shortly.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Enclosure
cc: Congressman Melvin Watt
Congressional Black Caucus Meeting of June 22, 2004

Congressman Watt: You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do* -- it’s all about your ego - another f * * * ing arrogant white man.

* Just the opposite is true. Some members of the CBC were telling Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, who were invited to this meeting, what to do -- withdraw their campaign and deny millions of voters the opportunity to vote for the candidacy of their choice. Nader was not telling the CBC what to do. Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo are acting in the best interest of the voting public by placing the progressive agenda before the American people and pursuing their campaign.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Robert Sprye (beowulf [at] affv.nu)
The black caucus is right.

Nader´s campaign is a waste of time, money, and effort.

It will only serve the interests of the opposition.

There is a viable and believable candidate who has been campaigning for months.

If the "left" were truly in earnest and truly equipped at this time to openly challenge the oiligarch it would have long since put all it´s money and effort, nationwide, behind Dennis Kucinich.

As it is, the left is a brocade of ill-disciplined and less focused entities lacking the wherewithall to decisively unite in a common cause of global import;

defeating the criminal oiligarch and installing a legitimate representative of the peoples will as well as national and international law.

Nader is in actuality performing a great service for all those interested in maintaining oiligarchian rule. I sincerely suspect the individuals motives.


by Robert Sprye (beowulf [at] affv.nu)
Oops. Thanks to breaking news, I now stand corrected;

I was sadly mistaken about the man Kucinich; I freely admit that now.

He has obviously stepped off the moving train that could have been his destiny in order to toe the party line. I guess that ticket wasn´t his after all.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

As we already know there is no difference between a Republican and Democrat in our societies bogus election process; the substance is precisely the same it is just that the sound bites are altered slightly and delivered in a different colloquial accent to a different audience of consumers.

You would have to be quite an individual and quite a world class leader to openly confront the so called "democratic" party with it´s own iniquities. Not to mention labelling Kerry publicly for the material opportunist he is, instead of selling out the efforts and honest work of millions, just so that we don´t have a "platform fight".

Sorry, Kucinich, but the innocent lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi nationals take precedence over your personal concerns about an American democratic party "platform fight".

Bush, Blair, and their corporate masters behind them are war criminals of the first degree. We will have justice as well as a reinstatement of our legal rights as citizens and they will pay personally for their own actions.

I wonder what Kucinich was offered? A bigger car?

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network