"The NAACP is Racist"

[Theocrat]

Bob says it like no one else can... :D

YouTube - NAACP Says Tea Party is Racist... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY4dyCiP9b4)

[Dr.3D]

LOL, yep.

Even as a small child, I always wondered what the NAACP would do if an organization called the NAAWP were to start up. I suppose they would say that was racist.

[TinCanToNA]

Haha, a little over the top. But the NAACP is racist by its very nature. How can this ever be in question?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Haha, a little over the top. But the NAACP is racist by its very nature. How can this ever be in question?

The problem is with the use of the word "Racist." If one is to truly believe that it was never innate in an old "N" igger's nature to wander through wood piles and to run off with watermelons, then the same argument can also be made that it isn't innate in an old "R" acist's nature to drop his drawers everytime a hog grunts out in the barn. While the old "N" igger was animated and charachatured in such a fashion, the new picaninny has become the mythical "R" acist." But surely no such person has ever existed.
As literature is often supported by the methods of the cognitive sciences, its gotten to the point that we believe it.
I don't believe in using either the "N" word or the "R" word. But, then again, I like to think of myself as sophisticated and ahead of my time.

[BlackTerrel]

How many NAACP threads do we need? We get it.


LOL, yep.

Even as a small child, I always wondered what the NAACP would do if an organization called the NAAWP were to start up. I suppose they would say that was racist.

The difference is there is no need for a NAAWP. The NAACP was at one point needed and did good. The problem is as time passes and there becomes less and less a need for them they still need to justify this massive organization and huge budgets. So they have to find things to be concerned about, even when there is less and less.

They're far from the only ones. Remember all those Italian groups protesting "Jersey Shore"?

[michaelwise]

Racism = Zionism

[heavenlyboy34]

Haha, a little over the top. But the NAACP is racist by its very nature. How can this ever be in question?

It may be racist now, but its original mission was not. They were infiltrated, like the GOP, the LP, and eventually C4L will be infiltrated. Thier history is summarized here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP

[james1906]

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/men/vince-vaughn/pictures/vince-vaughn-picture-3.jpg
looks like
http://dallassouthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ben-jealous.jpg

Does anyone else agree with me?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/men/vince-vaughn/pictures/vince-vaughn-picture-3.jpg
looks like
http://dallassouthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ben-jealous.jpg

Does anyone else agree with me?

I would say that neither man looks like the classic "R" acist. They both look college educated, somewhat gay in a lame sense of that word, and some might even say they look Jewish -- not that there is anything wrong with that.
See, I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all Math problems reduce down not to simple terms, mind you, but to a more complex raciail prejudice.
Fascinating!
Someone cook up some pop corn!

[Theocrat]

Haha, a little over the top. But the NAACP is racist by its very nature. How can this ever be in question?

Some people justify its existence by saying such an organization was necessary to counter the racist measures of the culture in which it was created. However, I think that is an immature way to handle racist attitudes in a culture. "You're being racist towards Blacks in society, so we're going to form a group to show you how Blacks are equal or even better than your race." It's counter-productive and hypocritical.

We should never judge the merits of a person based on the color of their skin, nor should we counter racist attitudes with other racist attitudes. Men are more than just melanin. If we wish to end racism, we have to stop looking at people as Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Browns, and Reds. We do have souls (no matter what evolution lies to us about), and because of that, we need to judge the character of each other's souls.

[phill4paul]

Is that Al Bundy on meth in the video?

[michaelwise]

Why isn't there an NAAWP? There is an NAAJP, they go by the name of ADL and AIPAC.

[Imaginos]

As an ethnic minority (I am Asian), the organizations like NAACP disgust me to no end.
Those low lives just don't have any self-esteem.
What they are promoting (affirmative action, racial and gender quota) are the race based politics at its worst!
Let me dedicate this free form Haiku to those morons.
NAACP=
N = Nobody
A = Anticipates anything decent coming out of your
A = Ass-wipe-ish and
C = Clown-ish,
P = Peace of shit of organization.

[Theocrat]

Is that Al Bundy on meth in the video?

He does remind me of Al Bundy. [lol]

[Cowlesy]

Blah. I love Bob, but I could care less about venting about this org. I'd rather we reach out to people in all these organizations and try to demonstrate that freedom/individual liberty is the answer. In 19-- it may not have been for their members, but it can be now!

[jmdrake]

Some people justify its existence by saying such an organization was necessary to counter the racist measures of the culture in which it was created. However, I think that is an immature way to handle racist attitudes in a culture. "You're being racist towards Blacks in society, so we're going to form a group to show you how Blacks are equal or even better than your race." It's counter-productive and hypocritical.

We should never judge the merits of a person based on the color of their skin, nor should we counter racist attitudes with other racist attitudes. Men are more than just melanin. If we wish to end racism, we have to stop looking at people as Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Browns, and Reds. We do have souls (no matter what evolution lies to us about), and because of that, we need to judge the character of each other's souls.

Forming an organization to fight government sponsored oppression of a particular group is a just and honorable thing to do. Remember that one of the NAACP's great moments was overturning Brown v. Board of Education. Libertarians can talk all they want about Jim Crow being a "form of collectivism", but it wasn't the libertarian movement leading the charge to overturn Jim Crow. (Yes there were libertarians involved.)

Side note. I responded to your thread "The Amazing Racist". If I had been a betting man I could have taken your money. ;)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=246584

[johngr]

Who cares?

[TinCanToNA]

Some people justify its existence by saying such an organization was necessary to counter the racist measures of the culture in which it was created. However, I think that is an immature way to handle racist attitudes in a culture. "You're being racist towards Blacks in society, so we're going to form a group to show you how Blacks are equal or even better than your race." It's counter-productive and hypocritical.You are quite right. This begs the question of the "libertarian contradiction," of allowing/encouraging unlimited free association but a predisposition for disdain of any organization whatsoever. But I digress, that is for a different thread.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed for a reason too, and for a specific purpose. As was every organization, but being a "product of the times in which you grew up" is an attempt to excuse someone or some group of their unacceptable behavior. It's still unacceptable behavior. So long as the NAACP engages in unacceptable and (in its case) racist behavior, it should be shunned and we all should probably choose to rightfully harbor disdain for it.

[johngr]

You are quite right. This begs the question of the "libertarian contradiction," of allowing/encouraging unlimited free association but a predisposition for disdain of any organization whatsoever. But I digress, that is for a different thread.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed for a reason too, and for a specific purpose. As was every organization, but being a "product of the times in which you grew up" is an attempt to excuse someone or some group of their unacceptable behavior. It's still unacceptable behavior. So long as the NAACP engages in unacceptable and (in its case) racist behavior, it should be shunned and we all should probably choose to rightfully harbor disdain for it.

"Unacceptable" according to whom? And what "behavior" are you talking about. I think we're talking about rhetoric here. The NAACP has every right to restrict membership in its private club to whomever they want. They even have the right to say that people of European origin don't have a reciprocal right, at the risk, though of being blatantly hypocritical which is far worse a "sin" to me than "racist". Ever hear of free speech? You sound like a Frankfurt School Marxist pointing your little pc BS rifle at a non-traditional target.

[jmdrake]

You are quite right. This begs the question of the "libertarian contradiction," of allowing/encouraging unlimited free association but a predisposition for disdain of any organization whatsoever. But I digress, that is for a different thread.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed for a reason too, and for a specific purpose. As was every organization, but being a "product of the times in which you grew up" is an attempt to excuse someone or some group of their unacceptable behavior. It's still unacceptable behavior. So long as the NAACP engages in unacceptable and (in its case) racist behavior, it should be shunned and we all should probably choose to rightfully harbor disdain for it.

The KKK's purpose may have been specific, but it was never legitimate. There's no sensible comparison between Thurgood Marshall arguing for the repeal of Jim Crow and "night riders" using terrorism to set up Jim Crow in the first place. And yes I'm familiar with the "they were just reacting to reconstruction" argument. It still doesn't fly.

[jmdrake]

"Unacceptable" according to whom? And what "behavior" are you talking about. I think we're talking about rhetoric here. The NAACP has every right to restrict membership in its private club to whomever they want. They even have the right to say that people of European origin don't have a reciprocal right, at the risk, though of being blatantly hypocritical which is far worse a "sin" to me than "racist". Ever hear of free speech? You sound like a Frankfurt School Marxist pointing your pc BS rifle at a non-traditional target.

For the record, the NAACP has never restricted membership on the basis of race.

[Mach]

Who created the NAACP? What was their goal? :rolleyes:

By the way, good video.

[Lord Xar]

How many NAACP threads do we need? We get it.



The difference is there is no need for a NAAWP. The NAACP was at one point needed and did good. The problem is as time passes and there becomes less and less a need for them they still need to justify this massive organization and huge budgets. So they have to find things to be concerned about, even when there is less and less.

They're far from the only ones. Remember all those Italian groups protesting "Jersey Shore"?

Hey BT, c'mon tell us the truth - you thought OJ Simpson was framed, don't you?

Also, in regards to those "italian groups" - really? They have as much power and relevence as a shoe. The thing is, the "italian groups" of yonder years gave up because the italians integrated and didn't need the handouts or the help anymore. So, those groups were no longer needed. The NAACP is a leftist front used to manipulate the black community to keep them needy and victimized. Simple.

OJ was guilty bro.

[jmdrake]

Hey BT, c'mon tell us the truth - you thought OJ Simpson was framed, don't you?
.
.
.
OJ was guilty bro.

Are those two positions mutually exclusive? It's highly possible (indeed likely) that OJ did it, the LAPD figured he did it, the LAPD didn't have the proof they needed and so they just "fudged" it. They didn't keep the correct chain of evidence and some of the blood taken from OJ to do the "comparisons" was missing. I don't think Mark Furhman drank it. That said OJ is as guilty as sin. You wouldn't offer to write a book that said "This is how I would have done it" if you didn't do it.

Oh, and since the OJ trial a lot of information has come out about just how unreliable the DNA testing back then was.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

[TinCanToNA]

"Unacceptable" according to whom? And what "behavior" are you talking about. I think we're talking about rhetoric here. The NAACP has every right to restrict membership in its private club to whomever they want. They even have the right to say that people of European origin don't have a reciprocal right, at the risk, though of being blatantly hypocritical which is far worse a "sin" to me than "racist". Ever hear of free speech? You sound like a Frankfurt School Marxist pointing your little pc BS rifle at a non-traditional target.

"Unacceptable" is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. How can you not understand that? Yes, I have heard of free speech. It's what allows you to try to label me as a Marxist, which is the height of irony on at least two fronts: first that someone of this forum would use a collectivist term without warrant, and second that I would ever be called any type of Marxist. Either my message was unclear, or you have reading comprehension issues, or you are unable to grasp very basic concepts.

The NAACP is unacceptable because of their rhetoric; to me, at least. Their organization's rhetoric is often plainly anti-liberty, hence "unacceptable," generally speaking, to some people who value liberty. Then again, the term "unacceptable" itself is a rhetorical flourish, which some people may find to be "unacceptable."


jmdrake, you are correct. My point was that an organization's sense of purpose in the distant past is largely irrelevant when evaluating their actions and positions in the present.

[jmdrake]

:eek: I just realized something! The KKK used to be known as "night riders". And Michael Hasselhoff starred in a TV show called "Knight Rider". Michael Hasselhoff is a racist! :D

[BlackTerrel]

Hey BT, c'mon tell us the truth - you thought OJ Simpson was framed, don't you?

Also, in regards to those "italian groups" - really? They have as much power and relevence as a shoe. The thing is, the "italian groups" of yonder years gave up because the italians integrated and didn't need the handouts or the help anymore. So, those groups were no longer needed. The NAACP is a leftist front used to manipulate the black community to keep them needy and victimized. Simple.

OJ was guilty bro.

Your best argument is OJ Simpson? I was 8 at the time.

As for those Italian American groups they sure got a lot of press when they protested a TV show:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=italian+american+groups+protest+jersey+shore&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CSUI2Cw5GTOj1OYmgjQPXy9mMDwAAAKoEBU_QlPgy&fp=d706bc2a5dba00d4

[jmdrake]

Your best argument is OJ Simpson? I was 8 at the time.


In that case, you probably don't even remember David Hasselhoff. :D

[BlackTerrel]

The drunk dude that ate the cheeseburger?

YouTube - 6 Minutes With The Embarrassingly Drunk David Hasselhoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FU5dg5efS0)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are those two positions mutually exclusive? It's highly possible (indeed likely) that OJ did it, the LAPD figured he did it, the LAPD didn't have the proof they needed and so they just "fudged" it. They didn't keep the correct chain of evidence and some of the blood taken from OJ to do the "comparisons" was missing. I don't think Mark Furhman drank it. That said OJ is as guilty as sin. You wouldn't offer to write a book that said "This is how I would have done it" if you didn't do it.

Oh, and since the OJ trial a lot of information has come out about just how unreliable the DNA testing back then was.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

See, this is typical. O.J. was not found not guilty. He was found to be not guilty in criminal court and found guilty in civil court. So, neither of you are right or wrong.

[puppetmaster]

there was a NAAWP...I saw it back in 2000 or so

[TigerPrwn]

Hey BT, c'mon tell us the truth - you thought OJ Simpson was framed, don't you?

Also, in regards to those "italian groups" - really? They have as much power and relevence as a shoe. The thing is, the "italian groups" of yonder years gave up because the italians integrated and didn't need the handouts or the help anymore. So, those groups were no longer needed. The NAACP is a leftist front used to manipulate the black community to keep them needy and victimized. Simple.

OJ was guilty bro.
I certainly think he was framed because he WAS.

O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58743.html

CAUTION: You just might "change" your mnd. ;)


Perhaps you have heard of OJ's oldest son who was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and Manic Depression?

[TigerPrwn]

error in posting.
meant to post this along w/ the rockwell link:

Here is a fascinating video that makes a case for someone else committing the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (though O.J. was involved in his own way, after the fact). Keep in mind that the author, like the vast majority of people, believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty—until he started looking further into the case. The video is one hour and twenty minutes long. It starts to become more interesting and compelling at about half way through, so stick with it. Feel free to send me feedback. (Please keep it civil—no tirades against me for posting this.) I will post as many LRC reader reactions to the video as I can.
Tell LX to fo BT, being 8 is no excuse. you got back up, and if you really are black, you should know this shit already. :D

[johngr]

"Unacceptable" is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. How can you not understand that? Yes, I have heard of free speech. It's what allows you to try to label me as a Marxist, which is the height of irony on at least two fronts: first that someone of this forum would use a collectivist term without warrant, and second that I would ever be called any type of Marxist. Either my message was unclear, or you have reading comprehension issues, or you are unable to grasp very basic concepts.

The NAACP is unacceptable because of their rhetoric; to me, at least. Their organization's rhetoric is often plainly anti-liberty, hence "unacceptable," generally speaking, to some people who value liberty. Then again, the term "unacceptable" itself is a rhetorical flourish, which some people may find to be "unacceptable."


jmdrake, you are correct. My point was that an organization's sense of purpose in the distant past is largely irrelevant when evaluating their actions and positions in the present.

Think about the difference in meaning and implication difference between "that's unacceptable" and "I don't accept that". And I never said were a Marxist. I said you sounded like one. Marxist language often presents prescriptions and personal opinions as objective truths, often by deleting the agent (in this case the agent is the one doing the accepting or not accepting).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I certainly think he was framed because he WAS.

O.J. Simpson: Guilty, But Not of Murder?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58743.html

CAUTION: You just might "change" your mnd. ;)


Perhaps you have heard of OJ's oldest son who was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and Manic Depression?

Come on. Let's be realistic. With African Americans on the jury, one would not expect OJ to be found guilty in the criminal proceeding. More evidence was allowed in the civil proceeding because he wasn't at risk of losing his life or freedom.
The people in the civil case were seething when they were allowed to see the evidence not allowed in the criminal proceeding. Still, it wouldn't have mattered what evidence was allowed in the criminal proceeding because we are a nation divided into the white and black letter of the law.

[johngr]

Why isn't there an NAAWP?

The same reason there's not a counterpart to the LIONS club for sighted people or if there were one it would be ridiculed and marginalised.