Skip to main content

I just saw a news report of an apparently European American woman being elected to head a branch of the NAACP in Indiana. Is there anything wrong with that?

Organizationally, the answer is 'No.'

Organizationally, the founders include European Americans. In fact, including European Americans was key to getting the group 'off the ground.'

I always felt ashamed of that.

I was proud that African American-Americas were the initiators of the idea, W.E.B. DuBois notable in that group.

I was still ashamed of the apparent need for European Americans to better assure success.

The prominent role of European Americans in the NAACP continues to be a problem for me with the organization. I give money, but I cannot bring myself to subject to European American opinion.

Yet, Walter White, who was not European American although he looked like it, proved the value color could be to the group. But Walter White was an African American-American. He used his color against the system.

He used his American experience of a 'black' man in a 'white'-driven society against the intent of the society.

So...clearly, I'm not prejudiced.

As a matter of fact, the local Branch of the NAACP had a European American woman for its president a few years ago.

She did a great job.

Local ministers attended meeting to challenge the African American community for failing in its responsibility to resort to accepting the leadership of a European American.

I was ashamed of that duplicitous example of obviously questionable self-righteousness.

So the question remains.

Is there anything wrong here?

If so, what?

PEACE

Jim Chester
African Americans for African America http://iaanh2.org African American Pledge of Unity We stand, Together, after left alone in a land we never knew. We Bind ourselves, Together, with the blood and will of Those who have gone before. From the Bodies of our Ancestors thrown away, from the Pieces of Ourselves left to perish, We rise as One, a New Body in a New Land, a New People in a New Nation. Of Common Mind, Body, and Spirit, By Declaration of our Amalgamated Individual and Personal Authorities, We Are African America. © James Wesley Chester 2004; 2008 You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

To be honest, if the NAACP is really about what it claims to be about, what it puts itself out there to be, then there is nothing wrong with it, especially since it was whites were instrumental in it's founding. Do you remember a while back that there was a post here that asked if maybe it was time for the NAACP to change it's name, well this could be one reason why they should, along with the fact that "colored" people are not always of African descent.

But, I personally think that African Americans should raise money to start their own Legal Defense organization---founded, financed, and run by people of African descent (I think you and I briefly talked about this before). Especially since, in my opinion, the NAACP appears to be more abouts appearance and publicity than actually un-biasly helping those whose civil rights have been violated--they appear to pick and chose who they will actually help based on the publicity it will bring to the organization and whether or not will step on the wrong toes.
Nope. I see nothing wrong with it at all. The organization is not the NAAAAP (National Association for the Advancement of African American People) or the NAABP (National Association for the Advancement of Black People). Although since forever, people have tried to make this organization exclusive to our needs, it simply is not, was not, never has been and never will be that.

So, I either accept them for what they really are, or I don't. I can't make them the organization I want them to be just because that's what I want.

Such is life.
quote:
But, I personally think that African Americans should raise money to start their own Legal Defense organization---founded, financed, and run by people of African descent (I think you and I briefly talked about this before).
---sunnubian


I do remember.

I'm still for such an organization.

You know, it's hard for us to have something by us just for us (fubu). It seems we, ourselves, come the conclusion it's not legitimate unless we invite/include some European American.

It's like it's not American if a European American is not in it.

That is a part of the reason I am so insistent on the definition of African America.

There cannot be a mentality that we are not real unless we deny ourselves.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Nope. I see nothing wrong with it at all. The organization is not the NAAAAP (National Association for the Advancement of African American People) or the NAABP (National Association for the Advancement of Black People). Although since forever, people have tried to make this organization exclusive to our needs, it simply is not, was not, never has been and never will be that.

So, I either accept them for what they really are, or I don't. I can't make them the organization I want them to be just because that's what I want.

Such is life.
---EbonyRose

I don't think 'colored' meant anyone other than 'black' folks in 1909.

So...I don't know what 'forever' you reference.

The NAACP was about 'black' people.

From the 'git'.

I am NOT saying the organization should not help other people.

To be honest, I always perceived that thing about 'reaching out' as a disguise to the fact that African American-Americans were not supporting the organization.

That started in the 1960s, the late 60s.

Nobody wanted to be 'bothered' with, or by the NAACP.

In fact, I think Jesse did the same thing for the same reason.

That's not bad; just the fact.

Survival is important.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I hear what you are saying, Mr. Chester ...

But, I do believe that "colored" did not exclusively mean Black.

Back then and even to day, I would think that Black folks are the biggest recipients of the benefits of such an organization. Hence, we took it to mean that it was "our" organization, developed for "our" benefit, since "we" needed it most and would receive the most benefit from it.

However, based on the fact that it was established by European and African Americans translates to the notion that it was not merely a Black organization exclusively for all Black issues. I also don't think that it would have been established at all if it were not for the European involvement. Although we were "colored" back in the time of the establishment of the NAACP, I alway took "colored" to mean "not White."

Admittedly, I am no expert on this, and could be wrong as two left shoes!! I have no problem admitting or accepting that. This just happens to be my opinion about the subject. But I am taking yours into consideration as well ... because seemingly, you would probably know better than I! Smile
Although we were "colored" back in the time of the establishment of the NAACP, I alway took "colored" to mean "not White."---EbonyRose

I used to be 'colored'.

It never meant 'non-white.'

More specifically, it meant the descendants of America's chattel slavery.

Those of us who 'did well' in some field like running, jumping, singing, dancing, and eventually politics and such were always, always, introduced as a 'credit to his/her people.'

There was no confusion about who 'colored' were.

'Colored' was us.

The NAACP was for us.

You might want to take a look at 'Souls of Black Folk' by W.E.B. DuBois. It might help with perspective.

He was one of the founders as was Ida B. Wells, and other others of course.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I wonder how a european is elected to the post? Were there no or few qualified/interested Black people to head the organization? Were there too few Black people to support the Black candidates?

Although I have no doubt that this woman is sincere in her desire for racial harmony, I'd rather an (race-based advocacy) organization fold than be co-opted.

I have frequently said that on matters of race, white folks can be soldiers; but never generals, in the civil rights army. They are welcome to fight the battles along side me, but they should never be the ones to determine the battle plan.

When I am questioned on this, I say that in the end, Black folks' and white folks' interests are not the same, and in some cases are at odds.

Generally, Black folk seek advancement and equality for ourselves, both individually and collectively; whereas, white folks (generally) seek advancement and equality for Black folks, collectively, but within a white priviledged system, that has benefited them individually. Like in the Orwellian story, "Animal Farm", white folks want everyone to be equal, just that some folks (them as individuals) are more equal than others (Black folks, whether individually or as a collective).

We, Black folks of today, frequently submit to the dilution of civil rights laws and organizations for the sake of inclusion.

Let us not forget that in America, ALL of the civil rights laws (and the organizations that fought for their passage and continue to fight for their enforcement) were specifically rooted in race - and that race was Black. To deny, ignore, or back away from this weakens our cause.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I don't think 'colored' meant anyone other than 'black' folks in 1909.

So...I don't know what 'forever' you reference.

The NAACP was about 'black' people.

From the 'git'.

I am NOT saying the organization should not help other people.

To be honest, I always perceived that thing about 'reaching out' as a disguise to the fact that African American-Americans were not supporting the organization.

That started in the 1960s, the late 60s.

Nobody wanted to be 'bothered' with, or by the NAACP.

In fact, I think Jesse did the same thing for the same reason.

That's not bad; just the fact.

Survival is important.


PEACE

Jim Chester

But, again, most of the founders of the NAACP were white: Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling, and Joel and Arthur Spingarn. Joel Spingarn was the chairman of the NAACP board from 1913-1939.

It is also my understanding that the term "colored" at the time could also include persons of Jewish identity.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I don't think 'colored' meant anyone other than 'black' folks in 1909.

So...I don't know what 'forever' you reference.

The NAACP was about 'black' people.

From the 'git'.

I am NOT saying the organization should not help other people.

To be honest, I always perceived that thing about 'reaching out' as a disguise to the fact that African American-Americans were not supporting the organization.

That started in the 1960s, the late 60s.

Nobody wanted to be 'bothered' with, or by the NAACP.

In fact, I think Jesse did the same thing for the same reason.

That's not bad; just the fact.

Survival is important.


PEACE

Jim Chester

But, again, most of the founders of the NAACP were white: Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling, and Joel and Arthur Spingarn. Joel Spingarn was the chairman of the NAACP board from 1913-1939.

It is also my understanding that the term "colored" at the time could also include persons of Jewish identity.


I was about to ask if she is an Askenazi(European) Jew...
In deference to JWC, I think that the name should be changed to the NAAAAAP.

The National Association for the Advancement of African American-American People---ricardomath

quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
ricardomath ...

You know the thought did cross my mind!

cabbage


Whatever makes you feel good.

The point remains that the NAACP was originally directed to the needs of Americans of unknown African ancestry.


PEACE

Jim Chester
We, Black folks of today, frequently submit to the dilution of civil rights laws and organizations for the sake of inclusion.---Faheem

I also wondered about the leadership in our community when it happen here.

Your concern in the above quote is what concerns me most.

I fear it is this repeatedly demonstration submission that I think is behind useless construction of the petition on the Voting Rights Act being prepared by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

Our organizations are failing badly.

I recently attended the installation of the president of the Greater Trenton Branch, a county-wide branch.

It had an active membership of 400.

Down from 2000.


PEACE

Jim Chester
But, again, most of the founders of the NAACP were white: Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling, and Joel and Arthur Spingarn. Joel Spingarn was the chairman of the NAACP board from 1913-1939.---kresge

Please consider this:

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~sww/0history/hwny-niagara-movement.html

Your post suggests that the NAACP''s concept and intent was something other than what we know it to be.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion you suggest, but it points to a very distorted/mistaken view of the history of African America.

I hope this helps with your perception of us.

We, Americans of unknown African ancestry, have always been the focus of the NAACP.

The drive to address the wrongs America perpetrated, and continues to pertetrate on African American-Americans is the founding concept of the NAACP.

As I said, I have problems with the organization, but I think I understand, and fully support the original intent.


PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
But, again, most of the founders of the NAACP were white: Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling, and Joel and Arthur Spingarn. Joel Spingarn was the chairman of the NAACP board from 1913-1939.---kresge

Please consider this:

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~sww/0history/hwny-niagara-movement.html

Your post suggests that the NAACP''s concept and intent was something other than what we know it to be.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion you suggest, but it points to a very distorted/mistaken view of the history of African America.

I hope this helps with your perception of us.

We, Americans of unknown African ancestry, have always been the focus of the NAACP.

The drive to address the wrongs America perpetrated, and continues to pertetrate on African American-Americans is the founding concept of the NAACP.

As I said, I have problems with the organization, but I think I understand, and fully support the original intent.


PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester

It seems that you are reading things into an observation that I made, namely that persons of European ancestory have been involved in significant and substantive ways with respect to the NAACP from its inception.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Whatever makes you feel good.

The point remains that the NAACP was originally directed to the needs of Americans of unknown African ancestry.


JWC,

I was just joking around with Ricardomath! I meant nothing derrogatory by it! Smile

After following the link posted above, I have come to the following conclusion, which may or may not be accurate.

It would seem that the primary concept and focus of the Niagra Movement was indeed directed specifically at the African American community. However, it also seems that that organization, at the time being made up entirely of African American membership, was unable to be successful in its endeavor for racial equality based solely on the desire for Black Americans to have equal rights with White Americans.

From reading the Mission Statement, Vision Statement and Objectives as posted by the NAACP (I couldn't find a copy of the NAACP Constituion online), it would appear that it was W.E.B. DuBois' inviting Mary White Ovington to become a member of the new successive NAACP organization, (along with the addition of other "White liberals") which formed a successful coalition towards fighting the injustices of the government upon the African American community.

However, unlike the Niagra Movement's Declaration of Principles, the NAACP's Statements and Objectives do not anywhere speficially speak to the rights of Black Americans' equal rights under the law. The language of the NAACP speaks to civil rights for all Americans. But, of course, no other Americans needed those equal rights more so than Black Americans ... and I don't think the scarcity of the language is lost on anybody as it regards understanding and clarity.

Perhaps that is why so many of "us" are so disappointed by the (in)action of the NAACP to properly address our concerns. It was the sister organization to a Movement that was very much dedicated to us as a people. But, it was (is) very much a different organization. It is not the Niagra Movement.

Had the Niagra Movement been able to persevere, and become as successful as the NAACP is today, I suspect there would be less disappointment in it as is heaped upon the present day NAACP. We complain that it's not "our" organization doing enough for "us". But, I would submit that unlike the Niagra Movement, its conceptual origin was indeed for our benefit, but not for our ownership.

And again, I may have it all twisted. But that's what it looks like to me. Smile

And thanks for the link ... I enjoyed the reading!
It seems that you are reading things into an observation that I made, namely that persons of European ancestory have been involved in significant and substantive ways with respect to the NAACP from its inception.---kresge

I did. But more significantly, I inferred that you were implying that Europeans were seminal in the movement of African American-Americans demand for the dismantling of Jim Crow.

I agree that Europeans were involved, and important in the organization of the NAACP. The NAACP, however, was an outgrowth of The Niagara Movement.

I wasn't assigning malice.

I didn't want that misconception polluting the information on the board.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

I have frequently said that on matters of race, white folks can be soldiers; but never generals, in the civil rights army. They are welcome to fight the battles along side me, but they should never be the ones to determine the battle plan.

When I am questioned on this, I say that in the end, Black folks' and white folks' interests are not the same, and in some cases are at odds.


My thoughts exactly....
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Nope. I see nothing wrong with it at all. The organization is not the NAAAAP (National Association for the Advancement of African American People) or the NAABP (National Association for the Advancement of Black People). Although since forever, people have tried to make this organization exclusive to our needs, it simply is not, was not, never has been and never will be that.

So, I either accept them for what they really are, or I don't. I can't make them the organization I want them to be just because that's what I want.


"Only Blacks will represent the universe and use non-specific organizational titles to avoid identification with their own people. The NAACP represents the civil rights interest of "colored people and minorites (and poor whites)," and the Rainbow Coalition represents "women, people of the rainbow," (and poor whites). Who then is representing the political interest of Black Americans?"

Dr. Claud Anderson

That being said I respectfully disagree with your assessment, EbonyRose. I honestly believe whites and others who may be affiliated with Black organizations don't possess genuine and unconditional economic nor political interest of Black people.

One must ask themself what do whites have to gain in Black movements other than self-gratification and a racial doo gooder pat on the back from Black folks? Tony Brown stated numerous whites (as well as Black sellouts) involved with the NAACP were designed as agent provocateurs to monitor and undermine the NAACP's credibility. Mind you, Tony Brown is a conservative Republican. If he believes this then it must be true, right?

I believe managerial positions in Black organizations should be spearheaded by other Blacks and as exclusive as white politics. Otherwise, as JWC stated, the likelihood of being "subject to European opinion" and interest. Haven't we had enough of that?

Again, what message are we sending by allowing whites to head Black organizations? Black people can't lead? Black people can't function without the reliance of others? This is the wrong message and unfortunately believed to be true with many people.

Those that are aware know that the NAACP and the Rainbow Coalition are misguided falsehoods. Which leaves us with one alternative: Blacks should build and run new and progressive organizations from the ground up exclusively for blacks to provide self-sufficiency, economic competitiveness and political empowerment. Remember, we're trying to win in this game of life, not be racial apologist or be everything to everybody except ourselfs.

KEYNOTE
keynote ...

While I understand what you're saying, I think you have misunderstood me on some level. If you look at my post at the end of page one, I believe (or at least it was my intention to) that I was basically saying what you just said! Smile But, just for further clarification, let me say it this way.

I personally do not consider the NAACP to have been started as a "Black" organization. In other words, it was not FUBU (For us, by us). The Niagra Movement was FUBU. And it did not succeed. It morphed into the NAACP, which got strong backing from, and at least in the beginning was heavily fortified by the involvement of White people. Whatever their reasons for doing it was it a whole other subject. But, the basis of the Niagra Movement, which was Black folks organizing for the benefit and forward progression of Black folks is not the same organization as the NAACP. Never was. And presumably never will be. Yes, Blacks reap(ed) the biggest benefits from the NAACP organization, there's a lot of us up in there, and many of the goals and fights involve our issues ... but that's totally different from saying that it is our organization.

In essence, this statement:

quote:
Blacks should build and run new and progressive organizations from the ground up exclusively for blacks to provide self-sufficiency, economic competitiveness and political empowerment.


... is not only absolutely true, but should also be recognized that it is not and never has been the NAACP movement!! It didn't start out that way, isn't that way now, and isn't looking to be that way! The truth of the matter is, we don't have one. At least not one that's nationally recognized. We've allowed the NAACP to be the smokescreen of one. But, I believe more and more conscientious people are realizing that it is not ... and hopefully, this will created the formation of one! I, for one, I'm ready for it! tfro

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×