Why We Still Need the NAACP

Stop...

[

Devil's advocate question: would an organization that simply pursues civil liberties for all (say akin to the ACLU) work just as well these days?

It would be important to note ALL the major points of Obama's speech to the NAACP. I suspect that at least a few of them are being conveniently left out to make it more palatable to certain partisan ears. A more holistic perspective on the reasons behind the plight of subcultures of certain groups would be a welcome change to the debate.

Amazing how power grabs cause conflict, isn't it?

Also, with "historically," you're referring to US history, right? My wife took a class on race and psychology in grad school, and her black teacher was very adamant that white people were inherently racist. Her Jewish classmate claimed he wasn't "white" in the Caucasian sense, and he felt his race was very much discriminated against as well on a global scale. Obviously, offenses are regional as well as national and global, but I found that exchange interesting.

You suspect incorrectly. For example, it has long been a standard discussion within the black community how best to lift itself up, but most people aren't familiar with that because they're not privy to that. Indeed, the NAACP's integrationist policies were seen, especially in the South, as the best way to do that. (Keep in mind that it contrasted with the "go slow" message of Booker T. Washington and in fact was a counterweight to that.)

NGCHEN asked: "Devil's advocate question: would an organization that simply pursues civil liberties for all (say akin to the ACLU) work just as well these days?"

BLUEDEACON responded: "Well, blacks have historically suffered the greatest amount of discrimination with the least amount of recourse, even uniquely written into law. The NAACP has also been targeted by the political right for its effectiveness over the years and unwillingness to back down in the face of attempted intimidation."

I say, inadequate answer that sidesteps the question at hand. I grew up as a minority in my neighborhood. My neighborhood was predominately hispanic and black. My family suffered quite a bit from racism from those two groups. For instance when my mother was forced out of a trade school because of the color of her skin. Unfortunately, there was not a NAAWP that could have taken up the cause of her injustice, probably because it would be called a "racist organization". I agree that organizations like the NAACP should still continue to operate, any organization that takes up the cause of somebody suffering injustice is doing the right thing in my book. Considering that you can search the globe, and history and find that all "races" at some point have been slaves, tortured, etc., I think NGCHEN has a valid question that needs more attention. I feel that the safest, and most assured way of protecting the civil rights of one group, would be to ensure and work towards protecting the civil rights of all groups.

A few years ago I sat in a small group with a Vietnamese woman who was a cook at a local high school. She said she often gets harrassed by African Americans. One girl called her a Chinese b-----. There were no repercussions. This year in my class we were on a field trip when several African American girls slanted their eyes and started getting down on "Chinese" -- as if all Asians were so. The Japanese American boy in the group obviously took issue.

All this to say that racism goes both ways. There have been a number of instances of one racial group beating up on another at bus stops. So, I agree with NGCHEN and NONKIMONO.

I think that's a decent question. I don't know how many people watched the spat between Senator Boxer and the head of the Nat. Black Chamber of Commerce in a recent Senate hearing. While I'm always up for someone rhetorically smacking Sen. Boxer around (she's one of the dimmest bulbs in the the Senate), what the exchange showed was the problems with race based organizations. The head of the black Chamber was annoyed that she was pitting the statements of other black organizations against his in an attempt to gain racial superiority. But he failed to see the irony that that is what racially-based organizations do all the time. The black Chamber invites this type of stuff when its members make their race the focal point of their organization along with the advocacy of business interests.

Hopefully, in time, the NAACP will wither away because people will see the benefit in an organization that fights discrimination against anyone regardless of race and the downsides in organizations organized along racial lines, and the black Chamber will wither away and the Chamber of Commerce will advocate the needs of all businesses, black owned or not.

The black Chamber invites this type of stuff when its members make their race the focal point of their organization along with the advocacy of business interests.

That's not necessarily the black Chamber's fault -- in most cases the reason you have such a "race-based" group is because the "white" groups wouldn't accept blacks and they over time developed a culture and history of their own. Simply disbanding because it's not needed would thus be considered premature.

And here's the rub: There's still a great deal of resentment on the part of conservative politicians toward the NAACP for, really, not kissing their heinies; on the contrary, it gets in their face and doesn't fear telling them what they think -- because they know whom they're dealing with. Some years ago Julian Bond called the conservative movement "the Taliban wing of the GOP," which in that context was unfortunately pretty accurate because you simply can't reconcile with people whose only interest is power for its own sake.

Another piece of trivia: Half the founding members of the NAACP were white.

Well, blacks have historically suffered the greatest amount of discrimination with the least amount of recourse, even uniquely written into law. The NAACP has also been targeted by the political right for its effectiveness over the years and unwillingness to back down in the face of attempted intimidation.

Amazing how power grabs cause conflict, isn't it?

Also, with "historically," you're referring to US history, right? My wife took a class on race and psychology in grad school, and her black teacher was very adamant that white people were inherently racist. Her Jewish classmate claimed he wasn't "white" in the Caucasian sense, and he felt his race was very much discriminated against as well on a global scale. Obviously, offenses are regional as well as national and global, but I found that exchange interesting.

You suspect incorrectly. For example, it has long been a standard discussion within the black community how best to lift itself up, but most people aren't familiar with that because they're not privy to that. Indeed, the NAACP's integrationist policies were seen, especially in the South, as the best way to do that. (Keep in mind that it contrasted with the "go slow" message of Booker T. Washington and in fact was a counterweight to that.)

One of our local minority weekly's African American columnists took issue with that aspect of Obama's speech. He didn't think that Obama should have spoken about personal responsibility. The advantage Obama has is that he is sort of a 'hood outsider and comes to the issue with a different perspective because of his personal history. It was noted on the NewsHour that that part of the speech was similar in tone to what Bill Cosby talks about. I do not get the sense that it is pervasive throughout the AA community.

In fact, that is indeed the case; however, it's rarely said publicly because folks recognize that "self-help" can get you only so far. Keep in mind that those who fought for civil rights in the South made up the upper-class of the black community of that day (you need money to fight on that scale). Only recently have I come to recognize just how much of a factor slavery has been on the African-American psyche, especially male, and since Obama wasn't descended from American slaves -- indeed, his father was among the elite in his own country -- he doesn't have that connection.

The black Chamber invites this type of stuff when its members make their race the focal point of their organization along with the advocacy of business interests.

That's not necessarily the black Chamber's fault -- in most cases the reason you have such a "race-based" group is because the "white" groups wouldn't accept blacks and they over time developed a culture and history of their own. Simply disbanding because it's not needed would thus be considered premature.

And here's the rub: There's still a great deal of resentment on the part of conservative politicians toward the NAACP for, really, not kissing their heinies; on the contrary, it gets in their face and doesn't fear telling them what they think -- because they know whom they're dealing with. Some years ago Julian Bond called the conservative movement "the Taliban wing of the GOP," which in that context was unfortunately pretty accurate because you simply can't reconcile with people whose only interest is power for its own sake.

Another piece of trivia: Half the founding members of the NAACP were white.

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......