https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Asian_Pacific_American_Caucus
...a bicameral caucus consisting of members of the United States Congress who have a strong interest in promoting Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) issues and advocating the concerns of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders...
To ensure that legislation passed by the United States Congress, to the greatest extent possible, provides for the full participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and reflects the concerns and needs of the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities;
To educate other Members of Congress about the history, contributions and concerns of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders;
To establish policies on legislation and issues relating to persons of Asian and/or Pacific Islands ancestry who are citizens or nationals of, residents of, or immigrants to, the United States, its territories and possessions; and To provide a structure to coordinate the efforts, and enhance the ability, of the Asian American and Pacific Islander Members of Congress to accomplish those goals.[1]
What's the difference exactly...?
Well the difference is that the groups that those caucuses represent face a common set of struggles and therefore have banded together to advance a common set of goals.
The reason it’s fundamentally not the same to have a “congressional white caucus” (or white history month, white chamber of commerce, etc.) is that the category of “white” is defined by exclusion, i.e. “not non-white.” There’s nothing wrong with people being proud of their particular Italian, German, Scottish, or sure, Anglo-Saxon heritage. But the only common thread that unites all “white culture” is the history of discrimination against non-whites.
Here, these people are clearly using “European descent” or “Anglo-Saxon heritage” or “America First” to mean “white.” The implication is that there is necessarily a white aspect to the “real” American cultural identity.
