The NAACP is racist...

racism: the act of segregating on the sole basis of race/skin color

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People only admits people of african race. This is unacceptable in a government funded organization.

Racism
noun
-Segregation and descimination based upon race, color, or ethnicity.

NAACP
-National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization who's membership is limited to those who are of African Decent.

The advancement of a particular race as opposed to all races is RACIST.

Please don't sue me.

You can argue the claim, but the description makes it obviously false.

You're playing word games, and while I could unpack them, you know you're playing word games - so why bother?

All I want to know is when we will just have the National Association for the Advancement of People.

When there is no massive disadvantage based on specific characteristics that needs to be compensated for.

So everyone is not equal under the law?

Everyone is equal under the law if and only if their circumstances are equal. Because the circumstances are not equal, the NAACP must exist to promote the improvement of the circumstances of African-American peoples.

Semantics aside, there IS no argument to be made.

'if and only if their circumstances are equal'

The law doesn't care about someone's circumstances or upbringing. Everyone has to make choices, and the NAACP chooses to only assist those with a similar skin color (something in which no one has any choice). The NAACP does not fit in with the law.

There is no argument, the NAACP violates anti-segregation laws.

Can you just state what it is that is bothering you so we can talk about that rather than hedging around it, which is tedious?

Lots of Black people are not given equal opportunity. A huge amount of Black people have been given significantly unequal opportunity as a direct consequence of evil of Americans, which means that there is a clear moral imperative to fix that.

Part of the reason that I am well educated is that my father could afford to have me go to school, not have to work to the point of not being able to do homework, and he paid for my college education. Had I not had that, I'd be significantly less educated and my native intelligence would be less valuable to me (at least, in theory - this works for lots of better examples).

So, take a really smart Black person who can't get a good education because she has to work to support her family rather than working hard at school, then she can't get into a good college, gets a crappy education with crappy certification and gets stuck in a nowhere job. Then she can't afford to get her kids a good education...

And remember that the source of her parents not having money was something like that except that the laws may well have been blatantly unequal against them. Pull it back in time and the further back you go, the more unequal the laws were.

I do believe in balancing the inequality of opportunity and education, while we're at it. I do think that a poor person who gets an 1100 on the SATs may well be significantly smarter and harder working than a smart rich kid who gets a 1450. And, as such, that poor kid should be given preference by colleges, since they'll use the college better.

I don't believe in affirmative action for jobs where the qualifications themselves are the point, like being a doctor, fire fighter, etc.

Put the help into supporting education and opportunity for advancement, not into the jobs themselves - unless you have to overcome actual racism of hiring and promotion, in which case, yes, affirmative action is the right thing there too.

The point is to level the playing field. Just because you can't see that you're standing on a hill doesn't mean that others won't think you're obnoxious for complaining about the pebble we gave to someone else to try to help make it more fair.

The last time I checked, public schools were free....

I will admit that I am splitting hairs, and the NAACP has provided an excellent service to poor black people. But poverty is not limited to people of African descent. Many ethnic groups have large populations in the poverty level and it is time that the NAACP became the NAAP and expanded its work to help everyone.

I am a second generation American, and my grandparents and parents had a hard time of things too. By your own reasoning and my logic (whether you agree with it or not) you can at least understand why I do not like the idea that there is no government-sponsored organization to help me and my children when there is one that supports people with a different skin color.

'Everyone is not equal, but all must be treated as equals' -Nietzsche

"There is no argument, the NAACP violates anti-segregation laws."

Actually, the NAACP does not violate anti-segregation laws, because it is a private organization and I do not believe it receives state funding. As such, it has the right to select its members and act in a manner appropriate to its beliefs, which in this case, happen to be the advancement of colored people toward the ultimate goal of equality.

Should the NAACP violate anti-segregation laws, a number of private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, will also be illegal under those same laws. Since the Boy Scouts are allowed, under the law (and, IIRC, a Supreme Court ruling), to discriminate with respect to selection of participating members, the NAACP has those same rights.

Were the NAACP a government-funded institution, however, you could possibly have a minor point. However, because they are not, your argument falls flat and suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of anti-segregation laws as they apply to private organizations.

*pause*

...Wait, I need to check if they're government-funded or not.

Nope, don't believe they're funded directly by the Federal Government. That makes them private.

I agree with Rachel that the NAACP does have good aspects, but when they take it as far as having a separate Hollywood awards show just for black people, that's a little much. It smacks of voluntary segregation to me.

I am sorry that I was confused about the specifics... I thought that only government institutions received 'tax exempt' status. I withdraw the claim that the NAACP violates anti-segregation laws, though I maintain the claim that it is racist.

Also, Boy Scouts does not segregate on the basis of color, race, gender, or disability. It does discriminate on the basis of age and you could argue that separating the boys and girls refers to gender, but the fact that either can join disqualifies that argument.

Doesn't tax exemption suggest government OR non-profit? I've never been TOO clear on this point, so I could still be wrong.

WRT Boy Scouts:
It discriminates against people of 'alternative lifestyles.'

I would argue that it qualifies as segregation. Perhaps not under direct legal definition, but segregation nonetheless.

Boy Scouts is known for discriminating against homosexuals.

But that point aside, while I do agree that there are poor people of other skin colors who are very deserving of help, that doesn't mean that an organization that focuses on one narrow problem is bad.

It means we need more organizations working on the other bits.

For example, there are some organizations that help blind people. That's great. But they don't necessarily do much for people who are partially paralyzed or have learning disorders. This doesn't mean they discriminate against people with those disabilities, just that they are focused.

I, personally, want to see improvements all around. But when you actually go to help people, sometimes a focus does help. And there are charities that try to focus on poverty more generally.

The NAACP was addressing a very specific and very real problem. That's good. But it wasn't addressing the problem you raise, and I think that's neutral.

Personally, I consider myself an equalist because I don't feel more commited to fighting racism (or racism for any specific race), sexism (either feminism or masculism), homophobia, etc. I feel like we need to get some equality all around here. But I see how people commited to more narrow causes (who aren't against the others, just not as equal-opportunity in mentioning them) are really useful.

Religions, in the US, are allowed to be tax exempt and almost as horrible as they'd like to be (pretty much every *ist you can name).

Good or bad, they are segregationists, which is racist by the definition of the word.

Semantics. Racism implies malice, while a narrow focus does not.

By that standard, aren't most churches segregationist? I don't see the Baptists providing aid and succor to the Catholics, and I'll be damned if they hold confession for Buddhists.

Actually, a lot of churches and temples will provide aid and succor to people regardless of religion.

It's the crappy, evil ones that won't.

Oh. I stand corrected.

Some churches are segregationist too. The NAACP is racially segregationist, which is by definition racism. Racism is unfortunately a "BAD WORD OH NOES!!" these days, but it is defined as anything that separates people based on race. People should usually be using the word "bigot" or "bigotry" when they are using "racist" or "racism". NAACP is racist, but only maybe a few people in it are bigots. Another word might be "prejudiced", but racism is simply a way people can be prejudiced or bigoted (i.e. "That redneck is racially prejudiced" or "that cop is a racial bigot").

This might give me Pedant cred, but I hate when claims are based on the connotation of words and not the meaning.

Thank you, David Harris. That is (said quite eloquently) what I meant by:

You're playing word games, and while I could unpack them, you know you're playing word games - so why bother?

Except, that I think I was wrong about the "you know you are" part. And you said it better than I would have.

The ironic thing is that if there was prevalent membership in a group like the National Association of the Advancement of White People it would be regarded by most as "racist" regardless of the good intentions of the members. So why the double standard? There are poor people of European decent all over the place, you don't see them with their own organization that only accepts white people. If you truly want equality for all races, don't have your representative organization's membership based solely on race (ie have an organization that protects the interests of ALL minorities, even the white ones). That does not seem too unreasonable now does it?

Because when the NAACP was founded the government was so incredibly unbalanced against Black people that it was an obviously justified cause.

Had a foundation been created specifically to benefit Irish people during the time when "No Irish Need Apply" signs were common, I don't think anyone would have objections.

However, when you create a group to benefit a splinter of humanity and you specify those who are, on average, better off, you look like an asshole - plain and simple.

You can make a group to benefit the poor, but if you specify the poor, white, you do look obnoxious and it's very hard to justify.

Sorry, but again, levelling the playing field is different from trying to just benefit a small group.

In my experience, groups to benefit the dominant majority have had more than their share of success at making complete asses of themselves. I would argue that it is that fact that would make public response to, say, a NAAWP highly unpopular.

That being said, were NAACP started now, it might attract charges of bigotry, but it is important to remember (now I'm just restating, really) that at the time it was founded, the wealthiest Black person had fewer rights than the poorest White person.

While the dynamic has changed somewhat, I doubt the NAACP would change its mission unless it felt its current one were achieved, which is still, sadly, not the case.

That's absurd though; their current mission is blatantly absurd, and can NEVER be achieved...

"The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial discrimination."

The problem is that you can't change people's hearts. Bigots are GOING to be bigots. Maybe their children have a chance, but chances are children will be like their parents. You can't remove racial hatred nor racial discrimination, because it's not really a "social" condition, but rather a personal one. Until you start using brainwashing or remove children from their parents for conditioning, their mission will never be complete. Nor are there any concrete processes by which their mission can be realized.

The thing is, though, through gradual education, viewpoints CAN be changed. It's a fairly evident statement that Americans today are far more accepting of, say, Asians than they were fifty years ago or even one hundred years ago.

If people's hearts could not change, this would not be the case. However, given that I have yet to be excluded from public schools, I would argue that people's hearts CAN change, but it takes multiple generations.

Just because its goal is impossible is no reason to say it's a bad goal. As I said before, you can't reach infinity, but you can travel further toward that path.

You can't make everything perfect, but you can make things less bad.

I'm pretty sad that no one has actually looked at the organization for themselves. If you did you would realize that they are not biased on race. They have even made an effort to collaborate with groups that fight say AIDS or racism towards other ethnic backgrounds. If you look at the membership page you will notice that they do not ask for any type of question that would categorize you under a certain race.

So I am hoping that with this in mind at least one of you will feel motivated to go out and do some research. If not then you really aren't one to speak on the matter.

Actually, you have to be colored, not specifically black.

True, but since white is a color that is excluded....

In any event, I say we just let old claims die: there's no need to revive this one.

True, true. I was just going through the massive backlog of 'new claims with comments after yours.'

interesting coment, that we should strive to reach infinity even though we know we can never actually get there, but the more valid question is, "is the NAACP the right way to get there?"

Are there other options for equality that would be more effiecient? someone suggested "leveling the playing field" I like that: lets just abandon the capitalist system we've worked to maintain and build and have the government take care of us. (Saracsm)

Well, hell, it's like saying 'let's abandon the Pyramids we've worked to maintain and build.'

Sometimes, an economic system is simply outdated. Don't take sunk costs into consideration when you decide whether to update.

Anon, if you don't start spell checking, people who *do* have a high school education are going to start mocking you.

Also, support your contention that racial equality and equal rights is dependent upon abandoning the capitalist system. I fear you've confused racial equality and equal rights with equal financial opportunity.

What does the economy have to do with an organization being racist or not?

In that case, support your assertion that the economy is racist. <smallfont>Like I asked before</smallfont>

I still agree with the original claim, though not the description. Luckily, I have a policy about that -- vote on the claim. the description is just there for color. so to speak.

What about the NAFRRF? (forcible re-education of racist fuckers)

Vynce: the description was a horrible attempt at a pun.

pun? or just joke? tongue-in-cheek humor i can see. pun I'm not finding.

That's how horrible of an attempt it was. I was going for pun and ended up with tongue-in-cheek.

Except, meta, that children in the innercity are often bused out to the suburbs for education. Children don't go to the school closest to where they live, they go to whatever school is within a reasonable distance and needs more racial equality.

It's basically affirmative action in public education. Besides, even the best and worst public schools are basically made for self-teaching. If you aren't self-taught or private/home-schooled, then you are likely fucked, regardless of color/race/gender/etc..

Ah well there you are Meta. It's not the economy that's racist, but rather the current distribution of wealth, and a government who doesn't give a damn about public education.

TD: So who goes to the innercity schools? They're not busing the kids from the suburbs into the city ...

actually, soemtimes they do.

bussing doesn't solve the whole problem though; among other things, the kids in a school will (in my anecdotal experience) bring more of their own culture if they feel the school is "theirs" and they will identify with it more if it's close to home. thus, even when the ratios of origins of students are the same, inner city schools will be more predominantly -- meaning actually culturally dominated by -- inner-city culture, and suburban schools will be more predominantly suburban.

It's odd watching this debate, since I live in a country with far fewer racial tensions than most.

I'm not opposed to groups of people getting together to help each other. If Blacks, Whites, Han Chinese, Bhuddists, Taoists, Advent Hoppists [1] or whoever.

Where I have a problem is when problems of hundreds of years ago are pinned on racial groups of today.

The vast majority of white immigrants to America in the early years were indentured labourers who had to work up to 7 years before getting freedom in exchange for passage. I'm not saying that the blacks didn't have it worse, but the vast majority of whites were far from oppressors.

[1] Obscure (fictional) Christian sect who hop everywhere. It's due to a misprint about "Faith, Hop and Charity" in an early version of the Bible.

Patrick,

Really? They are over here.

Regular calls for "reparations."

M.

Patrick: other than "how can you say such a thing?" and arguments with the description, I have yet to see anything presented in this thread to refute the idea that the NAACP is, fundamentally, a racist group. Have you any such?

Vynce: Sure, probably racist, but by what definition of the word? It all goes back to why deconstructionists have it right. Skipping my diatribe, I'll just say that many people include the intent/emotional aspect in their thoughts on what "racism" is. Look at a dictionary, and yes, the NAACP is racist. Say it, and clearly people get concerned about just what you were saying.

After all, I don't believe you're suggesting the NAACP is displaying the hate-crime sort of racism. (At least I dearly hope so!)

Not all racism is "hate-crime" level. Racism means only including/excluding certain peoples because of their ethnicity. It is quite possible to be racist without lighting a cross on fire or wearing a funny-looking white suit.

the hate crime sort, but not at the hate crime level. they're all on the same spectrum.

here's one thing I am saying, that you might not expect me to believe.

I'd like to note two things about this particularly insipid claim:

1. You don't have to be black to join the NAACP. White people are welcome to join. I used to be a member.

2. Half the founders were white.

3. The NAACP is a private (non-government funded not for profit) organization.

4. Tad could have easily looked on Wikipedia for this and not gone off half cocked.

5. After posting this, Tad should feel obligated to change his vote if he has any sense of decency or righteousness.

make that five things.

Don't post late when you're tired.

Five in the original comment, plus '6. Don't post late when you're tired' makes six things, but I think we all know what you're getting at.

I've already been informed of that months ago (by Rachel), CB. I know that you can be white and still be a member, but you can't get any of the financial support unless you are a "colored people."

I don't think that there is anything wrong with the NAACP. It is a good and worthwhile institution. But still racist.

to me, who can join is irrelevant to whether or not it is a racist organization. Similarly, if both red and green people can own slaves, but only green people can be slaves, slavery is a racist institution.

If the NAACP only allowed membership of people of colour, it would be a rascist organisation.

The fact that it only benefits the minority it was SET UP to assist does not make it racist.

Like Rachel said six pages ago; there are lots of NGO's that target minorities of all kinds from disabled people to groups of immigrants.

I don't see the problem here; Tad you clearly made this claim when you were under the misaprehension that the organisation had a restricted membership. Don't hang on to it now that you know the truth! C'mon buddy

"The fact that it only benefits the minority it was SET UP to assist does not make it racist." -- how not? if it makes a distinction in what it does based on the race of the people involved. that's racism. It ostensibly serves a purpose that its founders believed needed to be served, to help a group of people who were perceived to need help. There's nothing wrong with that.

Please, note again that I do not advocate the abolition of the group. but it *is* racist. that's its point. what it does is about race. it is set up to treat races differently. unfairly. yes, it is in an attempt to level a playing field which has long been slanted -- but it is racist.

the comments asserted that they only admitted certain people, and that isn't true. but we aren't voting on the comments. we are voting on the claim.

the description proposed that the organization should be abolished, and I don't support that. But I'm not voting on teh description, I'm voting ont eh claim.

The claims says the NAACP is racist. Well, the name of the organization ceratinly implies that they are doing things based on race. doesn't it? the website features pictures of four people on its front page -- all apparently brown in skin tone and of African descent. Now, short of a DNA test, is there a better criterion for judging someone's race?

The things they have accomplished -- which are good -- could not have been accomplished without that racism. But it is racism. Trying to say it isn't racism because it does good is detrimental to the society. If nothing else, it's bad for the language. discrimination based on race is discrimination base don race, plain and simple. As a white man who has lived in urban areas all hi life, I can tell you that you don't have to be in the national minority to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Don't get me wrong -- i'm not whining about it because I think most of the time it's happened, it has been completely justified; and it has never cost me as much as racism costs almost every black man in this country. But it's still racism. And giving a break, or economic or legal assistance to a person because that person is black is racism, just as holding a door for a woman that you wouldn't have held for a man is sexism. You must acknowledge these things to move past them.

Could someone supply a dictionary definition of "racist" in which its overall meaning is something along the lines of, "favoring one race without asserting its superiority over another," or whatever the definition is that we're discussing here that I can only think up inadequate descriptions for?

I looked it up in my dictionary at home and I also checked a number of online sources and I only came up with two definitions for racist: 1) "A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others," and from what everyone on here and everything I've read tells me, that's not what the NAACP stands for, and 2) "discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion," which still implies that they favor one race or religion over another because of "descriminatory."

I did find that "racial descrimination" is "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life," but that's racial discrimination and not racist, and I'm not really sure if that matters, anyway.

Or are we going by a definition that's not in a dictionary?

And then, I feel the need to apologise for getting into this long boring question over definitions, but I've always thought they were important.

Ryan: the NAACP is discriminatory based on race, as per your second definition.

Well, the only ways I can see to get out of labeling the NAACP racist is either:

Do some hand waving that implies that I don't know the definition of discrimination and distinction, and try to suggest that engaging in racial discrimination is not racist. which is really a position I don't want to take. I know how to discriminate between good and bad positions. Which is to say I can distinguish the difference. RH, who I normally adore, seems to be using this line of thought in his last comment. I probably just read it wrong.

Suggest that since the organization is dedicated to giving aid, the failure to give aid, when one is in no way obliged to give aid, based on race does not qualify as "nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life,"

To repeat myself, I've come to the conclusion that the NAACP is only not racist if its distinction of skin color is not nullifying or impairing equal footing for poor people with the wrong skin color, but merely failing to aid.

Are the agree and disagree folks using different definitions, or have I found the meat of this disagreement?

Discriminative as in "being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand" or
"containing or implying a slight or showing prejudice" both of which, so far as I can tell, don't apply to the NAACP.