Translate


Friday, July 16, 2010

Shame on the NAACP

As predicted, the NAACP, the once-proud civil rights organization, went ahead and played racial politics at their convention this week in Kansas City by issuing a (somewhat watered-down) proclamation calling on the Tea Party to cull its ranks of racists. Their head, Benjamin Jealous, "quoted" the recent Capitol Hill demonstration where black congressmen and women were allegedly called the n-word-even though no video of the incident can corroborate that claim. By choosing this low road, the NAACP has shown that it is no longer a credible civil rights organization, rather an arm of the democratic party.

Instead of getting on the public soapbox, would it not have been better for the NAACP to have organized a closed door meeting with leaders of the Tea Party or at least those people considered to be most influential within the Tea Party? Everybody could have aired their complaints, discussed the controversial incident, and come up with some sort of agreement or understanding that would act to unite-rather than divide our people. Perhaps, they could have even had that "long-awaited" public discussion about race that Eric Holder was talking about last year when he said America was a "nation of cowards" when it came to the racial issue. Speaking of Eric Holder, where's he been lately in the wake of all this New Black Panther Party controversy out of Philadelphia? Perhaps, he has joined his own Witness Protection program. At any rate, the NAACP chose the low road preferring to talk about "racist elements" within the Tea Party-elements they cannot document. Even if some fringe individuals were to be discovered showing up to a Tea Party rally, how can one condemn an entire movement because of the presence of a few kooks who happen to show up?

The NAACP has also been linked to reported efforts to have the Obama administration and the Justice Department drop all charges against the New Black Panther Party in the Philadelphia case-which was done. Had they any credibility, the NAACP would have urged prosecution to show their true commitment to voting rights since, historically, that was one of their main grievances in the days of Jim Crow. It would have demonstrated their commitment to the principle that the law works equally for all.

I also find it interesting that defenders of the action taken by the Justice Department have resorted to two tactics; first, to minimize the incident and claim that no actual harm was done; that it was an isolated incident, and that the NBPP is a tiny fringe group made up of kooks. (A tiny fringe group that has acted as bodyguards for that other famous kook, Cynthia McKinney, former congresswoman from Georgia.) The other tact is to attack J. Christian Adams as a disgruntled conservative and Bush supporter-without addressing his allegations. Now comes 24-year-old Newsweek writer David A Graham with an op-ed in which he also describes Adams and two other figures in this saga as...


WHITE.

It's a Perry Mason moment, folks.

The larger question which the media, Congress and yes, the NAACP should address is the alleged (informal) policy of the Justice Department not to prosecute civil rights violations if the victim is white and the perpetrator is black as in Philadelphia. This is a question that Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez and Holder should be asked about before Congress under oath. It's also a question that White House officials who were present at any reported meetings on this topic should be asked under oath. Who might that be? We can start with Dep. Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who actually signed off on the decision to kill the Panther case. White House visitor logs show that he had some meetings during the spring with Dep. White House counsel Cassandra Butts which coincided with the legal developments in the case. Of course, we have no record of what was discussed in those meetings, but I am confident that Mr. Perrelli and Ms. Butts can clear that up to the satisfaction of all...under oath.

President Obama came to office hailed as the "post-racial president", the man who was going to unite us all. Instead, he and his adminisitration have badly divided the American people up to now along ideological lines. Now that divide is taking a dangerous racial turn as it appears increasingly apparent that he, Holder and others like the NAACP prefer to play racial politics at a time when we need it least.

17 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I have declined several unsolicited offers in the mail to become a member of the NAACP, mostly because I'm still made that they expelled W.E.B. DuBois and never even apologized for it.

I'm not sure how the "Tea Party" could cull the racists from its ranks, since the Tea Party has no formal membership, no governing body, no agree rules, is not incorporated, nor has it adopted by-laws as an unincorporated association, and if anyone tried to do such, there would be three or five competing sets of by-laws.

The NAACP is, in my seldom humble opinion, tilting at windmills. They are also indulging in a political style that has failed both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and various third party wannabees. A focus on demonizing the opposition does not inspire voter turnout. A clear, ringing, inspiring program for the future inspires voter turnout. I don't see one on the horizon.

Anonymous said...

"You're dealing with people who are professional race-baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. THEY MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF RACE THAN ANY SLAVE TRADER EVER. It's time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history," said Mark Williams, a national spokesman for the Tea Party Express.

{Emphasis mine.}

Gee, that's not a racist thing to say at all.

If you don't see the constant race-baiting that goes on within the Tea Party and by its spokes-people then you're just being willfully ignorant.

There were people saying "I just want my country back" a matter of a couple of months after Obama took office, if not immediately. You know what that's code for.

Gary Fouse said...

The problem with the NAACP is they are still fighting the battles of the 50s and 60s. The other problem is that they completely aligned wit the Democratic party. Instead of being uniting, they are divisive.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

I would not use the language you attibute to Williams because the NAACP was once a great organization when they had people like Roy Wilkins and Thurgood Marshall leading them. Now it's Kwame Mfumi(?), Julian Bond and Ben Jealous.

As for your "coded" quote, I want my country back, it is not about Obama's race-it is about his far left policies and ideology. If he were a black conservative, there would be no issue. You shouldn't try to hang on argument on what you consider a code phrase.

Unfortunately, however, it appears race will enter the controversy as a result of cases like the DOJ dismissal of charges in this voter intimidation case. I hate to see it as much as you do, but it would be the fault of Obama and Holder if they really choose to play racial politics.

How sad for the country.

Anonymous said...

It is said that: "Absolute power currupts absolutely". In the case of the NBPP, this is surely the case, where the DOJ indicates, through their current decisions, that they can do as they please showing a pattern of injustice. All one has to do is follow the trail of meetings in the White House with the DOJ. An Associate Attorney General, DOJ, Thomas Perelli, met with the Deputy Counsel for the White House, Cassandra Butts on May 6th and May 13th allegedly to discuss the default judgement for the NBPP. It is courious that Cassandra Butts was an Assistant Counsel for the NAACP. What we know at this time that the case was denuded, settled and NBP did not go to jail. The NBPP can continue their intimidation behavior knowing that nothing will come of it, due to DOJ absolute power that leads to injustice.
Squid

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I think that the bottom line with the Tea Party is what Siarlys wrote:

the Tea Party has no formal membership, no governing body, no agree rules, is not incorporated, nor has it adopted by-laws as an unincorporated association, and if anyone tried to do such, there would be three or five competing sets of by-laws

This is probably both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.

Regarding the "I want my country back!" stuff though, I saw a video where people were saying things like that shortly after Obama took office. When asked by the reporter about exactly which of Obama's policies had them so scared, they were not able to name anything specific.

Now, whether people like that represent the fringe, a minority, or the majority of the Tea Party is another question. Whatever they are though, I agree that in that particular instance, there was a thread of racist sentiment.

But again, the Tea Party seems to be pretty varied. Folks like that just make for more dramatic television. If there are those who can explain their point of view in a more detailed, reasonable manner, nobody's going to put them on TV.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

We took our country back in 2008. We're not turning it over to the people who ran it into the ground and doubled the national debt again anytime soon.

Gary Fouse said...

Yes, Siarlys, you "took your country back" and look who you gave it to. Repeat that mistake in November and 2012, and you won't recognize this country.

Gary Fouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miggie said...

Siarlys,
I hate to challenge you like this, but your assertion that Du Bois was "expelled" from the NAACP is news to me. I knew he had disagreements with some of the other leaders and was estranged from them, he was not expelled as far as I know. How do you know this?
Otherwise I agree with you pretty much on the NAACP.

Miggie said...

Gee, Anonymous, I personally don't think your prime example "THEY ARE MAKING MORE MONEY OFF RACE THAN THE SLAVE TRADERS" is racist at all. When you really look at it, he is comparing one group of charlatans to another. He isn't saying blacks are inferior, is he? He says both groups took advantage of them for money and deserve to go to the trash heap of history. Isn't that true?

Of course, if you don't accept the plain meanings of words and are looking for racism, you will find it everywhere. Who, really, is being willfully ignorant?

Miggie said...

Anonymous, here is some news for you. Some people, almost half the country, including me, were anti-Obama before he was elected. That was because he was the most left of center senator in the Senate and we were fearful of the direction he would take the country. It (he) turned out
to be worse than I imagined but It has NOTHING to do with what color he is.

America in the last 50, 60 years has proven that it is not a racist country. We elected a black man to the highest office in the land. Our racial inter-marriage rate is the highest in the world. Our (my) top political scientist and intellectual, Thomas Sewell, happens to be black. I can give you long list of blacks in the top echelons of our society.
The Tea Party I went to featured a black woman speaker and nobody thought anything of it.
We say nothing when we have a Black Causcus but no White Caucus, Black Studies Deparrment but no White Studies Department, etc. We say nothing when all the blacks cheered when OJ Sinpson.was acquitted just as we say nothing when the Palestinians cheered on 9/11.

So keep looking for those secret codes, I'm sure you'll find them.

Gary Fouse said...

Miggie,

According to Anonymous, if you voted against Obama , it is code for racism.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I think we could all agree that anyone who cast their ballot with white supremacy as a motive voted for someone other than Barack Obama. I think we could also agree that most of the 47% of the American people who voted for someone other than Obama had no racial motives for doing so, or at least, had predominantly non-racial motives.

Incidentally, most of the African Americans who voted for Obama were motivated in part by racial pride, as were most of the Irish-Americans who voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960, which was not all the Irish-Americans who voted.

Gary, considering one thing you and I agree on is that our country is in bad shape, I sure HOPE I don't recognize it by 2016. I also think that, of the available candidates, President Obama is offering the best leadership available to see that we end up someplace better, rather than worse, than where we are now. He could do a better job if we end up in January 2011 with an unrecognizably changed Democratic majority AND and unrecognizably changed Republican minority, out of which he could pick a coalition of those Republicans and Democrats who showed some brains and some dispassionate patriotism to get legislation passed. But I don't see it happening, even though Sestak is a good tip for the iceberg.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,

Keep in mind that in the last election, the Dems put up people who ran as somewhat conservative. Yet when they get to Wash they do the bidding of the Reids and the Pelosis.

"I think we could all agree that anyone who cast their ballot with white supremacy as a motive voted for someone other than Barack Obama."

Do I understand you to say that (some) whites voted against Obama for the sake of white supremacy but blacks voted for Obama partially out of racial pride? What is your point?

Didn't Obama get actually a majority of white votes and 90% of black votes?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

That's probably about right. It is a demographic fact that any black candidate, white candidate, Hispanic candidate, Samoan candidate, Chinese candidate, Hmong candidate, for president will have to get either a majority or a near plurality of "white" votes, simply because they are a demographic majority of voters. So, it wasn't a sign of how strong "the black voters" are, it was a sign that a fair number of voters are not voting in racial blocs. I would guess that of the black voters who supported Obama, ten to fifteen percent turned out BECAUSE he was black, the rest were regular Democratic voters anyway. Of those blacks who voted for McCain, just about all were regular Republican voters anyway. I think there were two black men who thought voting for Obama would usher in a reign of black supremacy, and they were escorted away from a polling place in Philadelphia by the local police.

Gary Fouse said...

For such an "insignificant" group, their spokeshole Malik Zulu Shabazz gets a lot of air time. Someone should ask Cynthia McKinney about the anti-Semitic comments made by her NBPP bodyguards when she lost her last election.

Oh wait! I did last year when she came to UCI. No, I did not get a coherent answer.