Question About the NAACP (Not Meant to Be a Racist Thread!)

I think the NAACP does a lot of work for their membership. They are starkly different from the Rainbow Coalition. I don't think that anybody can truthfully assert that Rev. Jackson has never been involved in a shakedown for his personal gain--and at the expense of those he purports to serve.

 

Umm..I think this falls under the category,

"A Leeeetle Too Much Information"

 

Well, color me white!!


Just kidding...but regardless, my ass still has <some> color in it...or so I would like to believe

 

great thread



The March on Washington
Affirmative Action
When black folx stood . .they stood for justice and Equality
Stood for everyone. [unlike other orgs. . . NOW, Glad, Etc]
White women benefitted most from Affirmative Action
The Language of the Laws enacted after the March SAID ALL PEOPLE [in essence]

Rocket River
So let's trash the NAACP . . . . .
I hear they have a NAAWP . . . any members herE?

 

It's not that Jesse sues people, it's the threat to sue. He's a rabble-rouser. He'll look for trouble when it isn't there and some companies may be "outed" by Jesse as being racist if they don't cater to his wishes.

 

Well a nice good whipe with a swipe would fix that.



DaDakota

 

This is classic Rocket River. Absolutely classic. A bunch of sarcasm. Very little substance. Outrageous remarks. Did I mention lack of substance?

So Rocket River, let's see you dive a little bit deeper into your post and support your claims with facts.

 

I thought they kept it despite the offensive name because they've gained acclaim with their original title and changing it now would force them to build up recognition. It's just like WWF wanting to be world wildlife fund throughout the world. The title WWE is still wierd in my books.

Just my two cents...

 

Thurgood Marshall, shown here about 1940 reading aloud, became director-counsel of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, Inc. Marshall argued the Brown case before the United States Supreme Court.

In 1909 the NAACP was officially formed. In its early years its primary goals were to eliminate lynching and to obtain fair trials for blacks. Later, the goal became societal integration. One can argue about the NAACP's role in today's world, but there is no question it fundamentally changed our nation. Two examples:

The NAACP got Wilson to allow for the commissioning of black officers in WWI and worked for true integration of the armed services under Truman.

The NAACP legal team of Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall developed the legal theories and strategies that led to Brown v. Board of Education, including pressing precedent-setting cases in white-controlled courthouses throughout Dixie.

In regards to the name, group identities are complicated and in the 1960's many blacks thought the terms "negro" and "colored" were paternalistic and identifiers chosen by whites. The NAACP probably chose to hang on to the moniker for name recognition and a link to the past. Sort of (but not quite like) AT&T--American Telephone and Telegraph.

 

Read a history book. Look around you. Take a Sociology class.

Rocket River
of you are the guy who knows a source of a friend of a source that rainbow coalition did something maybe on wall street.

 

So much for this thread not being racist. . . I'm not going to defend Jesse, it's a shame there havn't been any leaders in my life time like the ones from the 60's. MLK and Malcolm X(I know many of you hate X, but if you grew up the way he did, you'd have to be pretty damn strong to not develope his beliefs), have been replaced with Jesse Jackson and Quanel X. I sense a lot of anger at the things Jesse has down, or things that Farawkan(I can't spell) says, which is ok, but you guys point that anger at all blacks sometimes. Look, those guys might be representatives, but they don't really represent the black community. Also, all leaders of today are flawed, not just the ones from the black community. There have been people like Pat Buchanan(Nazi), Newt Gingrich(Fascist), Rush Limbough(Liar), and Jerry Falwell(Evil Incarnate) who act like they represent the white majority, but do you guys really share their beliefs? Did you ask them to stand up for your rights? No, they just do it. It's not just Jesse, all leaders today are pretty pitiful.

 

Any prominent, powerful organization is going to attract some members that seek to benefit themselves before the organization. That's not unique to the NAACP.

The real question is, does the NAACP have a legitimate role in society today? If so, is it currently acting in that capacity?

I think that it clearly does have a role in society. Unfortunately, black people still dont receive justice - even when you take into account all objective variables like location, education, economic stratus, black people still receive the death penalty at a higher rate than whites for the same crime.

Moreover, while most de jure and perhaps even promotion/acceptance/hiring racism has been eliminated, there's still a real problem in that black people have less access to sources of future success at en early age. That's the key, imo. They go to worse schools, have fewer books, etc. It's one thing to say "black people are treated fairly after they turn 18," or "the law doesn't descriminate against black people." But when they start in such inferior situations, it's no wonder that I have exactly 3 black students in my property class.

While the NAACP doesn't always serve this mission, I believe that it does sufficiently to merit it's continued existence. Reform couldn't hurt, of course...

 

Let's toss another potato in the stew...

I have attended UNCF (United Negro College Fund) benefits all over the country, and a surprising number of schlorships are presented to non-blacks.

So much for names...

 

Nazi? Fascist? Liar? You must be a pleasant person to have disagreements with.

 

What completely discredits this argument is that you can very easily replace the word "black" above with the word "poor" and draw the same conclusions. This is a socio-economic issue, not a race issue. If you want to eliminate the problem, then you should strive to ensure that everyone has the same financial status. This has been attempted. It's called communism. Doesn't work.

 

Hmm... the first two adjectives appear unfounded and the fourth (evil incarnate) too much of a matter of opinion (I don't like either person, but those aren't really the right words), but Limbaugh is certainly either a liar or delusional. Not an ideological comment, but he used to make statements that were insupportable factually back when he was more prominent.

 

It's not even possible to discredit an argument. You can discredit facts. Such can render an argument worthless.

Secondarily, that's not true, as originally stated in my post. You didn't even do my the courtesy of reading. Why should I bother reading yours, incidentally?

But, if you must know, even when you eliminate economic factors from death penalty cases, blacks still receive the death penalty far more.

As for the rest, if a group identifies itself as a solidarity unit, and that unit is predominantly poor, that it becomes a group-problem.

Besides material criteria, objective criteria can also include that which concerns self-identification. Duh .

As for communism... what the hell are you talking about? I speak merely of promotion of early-childhoold advantage endeavors. Such as spending more money on education in disadvantaged areas. And if that is too far up the "slipper slope" towards communism for you... that's unfortunate, since similar measures are already recognized practice in even the United States.

 

i really wish we lived in a world where people didn't feel it necessary to form groups for the advancement of their race...

 

Well since I didn't see any facts to support your claims, I was forced to discredit the argument, which most certainly can be done. Let's see some evidence of your death penalty hypothesis. I'm doubtful you can find any.

Areas of economic underdevelopment will always suffer from the problem of being disadvantaged relative to areas of superior economic development. This much we agree on. To transfer wealth to the poorer areas in hopes of achieving balance can be dangerous. The goal of America is to develop the best performers possible, not the highest number of average performers possible. A minimum level of quality should most definitely exist, as evidenced by today's subsidies of low-income schools, but to try to create a system whereby everyone has the exact same opportunity is not only a lost cause, but it is also one that will lead to mediocrity.

My original point is that socio-economic status greatly clouds any judgment that can be made on racial outcomes. Discrimination is not always to blame when racial imbalances occur. There are many variables in the equation.

 

It is necessary because their are groups that are formed to do just the opposite. But I wish for the world you refer to also.