Has the NAAPC outlasted its usefulness?

Why is it that an organization that was chartered to create social equality is now a major voice of disharmony? And when did the assumption that all minorities are liberal become a given? Sometimes I feel that there is a different agenda than race relations at the heart of this organization. Do we really need organizations to represent every race in our country?

I suppose that they would only represent "disharmony" if you are not in favor of social equality. Any disharmony is likely the result of a conscious tactic on the part of the right, and their allies in the right wing echo chamber, to attack civil rights organizations as a means of currying favor with racist white voters.

All part of the modern version of the GOP Southern Strategy that Nixon pioneered with Harry Dent in 1968 and that was perfected under Lee Atwater. Atwater pretty well summed it up in a 1981 interview:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".

Now it's called "dog whistle" politics, because the coded racist words are coded so that they don't grate as much on the ears of non-racists -- only the racists can hear them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics

Has the NAAPC outlasted its usefulness?

The NAACP has lost influence on me. I used to pay attention to what they had to say and the causes that they were fighting for. Now it seems so much of the time they rant and rave just to get attention. Now a days it is getting easier and easier to tune them out.

As long as people are donating money to the organization to keep it going; it is obviously of some use *to them*.

Is it of any use to ME?

Probably not. I ignore them and the entire "race" industry for the most part.

But the fact that something doesn't float my boat personally doesn't mean it isn't of value to others.

And the NAACP is clearly seen to be useful to those who voluntarily provide its funding. There is no better measure of when something has outlived its usefulness than financial insolvency. The NAACP is far from insolvent.

I'm not a person of color, I'm not Jewish, I'm not Hispanic, I'm just a plain old ordinary white guy. So what gives me the right to question why people of color, Jews or Hispanics voluntarily join private organizations to promote common interests? I thought the right of association was in the Constitution, or am I wrong?

Some bright people believe that people tend to identify with those who share their national origin or have common beliefs. So you don't think that this natural tendency should find expression in an organized manner?

But I'll be open to this proposition: How about "We" (whoever that is) ban the NAACP and complementary other voluntary organizations like the Klan and white supremacist organizations? Then we can keep on going and going, banning a lot more private organizations that don't suit our personal fancy. We can have our own little reign of terror. Such fun.

BTW, the segregationists didn't think the NAACP promoted social harmony; they thought it was a radical organization seeking to rip apart the social fabric of the South.

A4K - I don't think anyone was suggesting they be banned. The question was more along the lines of does the organization have any relevance.

I think the larger issue is the "faces" (Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan) of the civil rights/black power/equality/whatever you want to call it movement have become the (well deserved) constant butt of jokes and walking caricatures of themselves. Anything serious or worthwhile the NAACP has to say gets lost in the clutter next to these clowns antics.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First...edirected=true

I think the larger issue is the "faces" (Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan) of the civil rights/black power/equality/whatever you want to call it movement have become the (well deserved) constant butt of jokes and walking caricatures of themselves. Anything serious or worthwhile the NAACP has to say gets lost in the clutter next to these clowns antics. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I agree. It's unfortunate that the ass-hats you mentioned have a made a lucrative lifetime career of telling each generation of black youth that the misery they suffer is someone else's fault.

As far as the NAACP as whole is concerned, I'm thankful for everything they achieved in the 20th century... but I'm lost as to what they have done and where they are going in the 21st. I'm sure they are too lol.

Speaking of Jesse Jackson....

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/J...parison-071210

A4K - I don't think anyone was suggesting they be banned. The question was more along the lines of does the organization have any relevance.

I think the larger issue is the "faces" (Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan) of the civil rights/black power/equality/whatever you want to call it movement have become the (well deserved) constant butt of jokes and walking caricatures of themselves. Anything serious or worthwhile the NAACP has to say gets lost in the clutter next to these clowns antics. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

In large part my response was based upon the last line from the OP: "Do we really need organizations to represent every race in our country?" And the answer is "Yes". Race (and religion) still matters in this country and I can't imagine a time when it will not. It's hard think of an ethnic group that has not perceived itself to be the victims of discrimination. So there is a need for such organizations, even if they only provide mutual support.

Granted, it ain't the NAACP of old, but is it really anyone's business other than it's members?

I agree. It's unfortunate that the ass-hats you mentioned have a made a lucrative lifetime career of telling each generation of black youth that the misery they suffer is someone else's fault.

As far as the NAACP as whole is concerned, I'm thankful for everything they achieved in the 20th century... but I'm lost as to what they have done and where they are going in the 21st. I'm sure they are too lol. Originally Posted by KaraLynnKelley

The NAACP is like labor unions: Back in the day they served a useful and much needed purpose. Now they really aren't so needed or useful but their "machine" represents too much $$$ for those in their leadership to just exit stage left.

Yes.

Just like most of the unions.

Has the NAAPC outlasted its usefulness?

The NAACP has lost influence on me. I used to pay attention to what they had to say and the causes that they were fighting for. Now it seems so much of the time they rant and rave just to get attention. Now a days it is getting easier and easier to tune them out. Originally Posted by Ansley

That's how I feel about Fox News.

It's hard think of an ethnic group that has not perceived itself to be the victims of discrimination. So there is a need for such organizations, even if they only provide mutual support. Originally Posted by awl4knot

If by "provide mutual support", you mean "perpetuate a victim mentality to the masses in order ensure the livelihood of a few", then I agree.

NAACP has yet to prove to be completely useless:

I feel that they are still relevant and thier overall intent is positive
(if they can learn how to fact check); however, their approach and ideology is seeming to be quiet outdated. This is where I think the problem lays.