Arts & Humanities >
Political Philosophy
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedThe National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: Is it time for a name change?
Results so far:
| Yes | 68% | 169 votes | Total: 248 votes | |
| No | 32% | 79 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesGood Hearts, Open Doors.
As times change, so must any organization that aspires to be relevant to the ever-changing dynamics and intricacies of contemporary society. Proposed change for any reason must be proactive with good intent; hopefully any resulting dialog will encourage revitalization that reflects and optimizes it's mandate, changes it's driving force as necessary, and optimizes performance with a healthy confirmation of direction.
Whether the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People as an organization requires serious change within shall be left for the the reader to ponder, in that even choosing to address the original question may be viewed by some as an opportunity to exacerbate racism.
Let us face that issue head-on and very clearly first. The question of the ages remains unanswered; why is it so eternally difficult for many human beings to accept the fact that other people, regardless of colour, are still human beings?
Shall we now proceed blindly, stumbling in every direction, pretending bigotry does not exist, or merely accept truth? Real people are different colours, cultures, and religions. At times specific individuals of ANY colour can be arrogant, obnoxious, unlikable, and their politics may be totally disagreeable. They may have different economic goals and interests, and they may conduct their social agenda and lives in an alien, seemingly inappropriate ways, at times offensive to other sensibilities . To make things even worse, the ugly fact of social terrorism also now hangs in the air world-wide and much distrust of "segregated association" has developed since the 9/11 tragedy .
There are substantial differences in colour and culture that must be recognized. Only the blatantly stupid would blindly deny racial differences exist and are at times
unappreciated ; but does pigmentation of the skin itself make a person any less human? No.
With eternal hope and common sense, then, modern civilization is ideally growing past that point, and in the United States, that progress has been promoted by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.
Given the dynamics of change that has occurred, it almost seems logical to question why the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People , a civil rights organization, maintains what appears to be a somewhat dated designation in the association name.
The original charter of the NAACP reads:
(1.)
Such is the somewhat contradictory and original 1911 charter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as documented, but the phrase "To promote equality of rights, and to eradicate caste or race prejudice", in 2008 terms, appears to stand out as an anomaly, and seemingly in direct contrast to the current name of the organization.
In 1911, the name " The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People" was specific and original ; for the era and then-existing social conditions it was deemed appropriate, and the intent of the organization was understood to be clear. There is little reasonable doubt the historical intent of the NAACP was well-intentioned, honorable and good as there was an obvious and desperate need for substantial social change in the treatment of African-Americans.
Substantial change is still desperately required today. Bigotry still exists. How can required change be effected? How can a name questioned promote any change? Perhaps, more appropriately, it should be asked: Why is the original question even being posed?
Perhaps, realistically within the mandate of this discussion, there is a perceived problem with public image.
Does the existing name of the NAACP infer that systemic, reverse discrimination can be equated to advancement nation-wide? Would using the dated term "coloured people" in a different fashion, for example, "The National Association of Coloured People for Advancement of Humanity" bear the same stigma? No.
In political or social theory, to advance ANY "coloured" group at the expense of any differently "coloured" group is discriminatory by definition. Burdened with that apparent perception, of contradiction, the organization may well be less effective than it could be.
With all due respect, the name, almost by inference, suggests that those "coloured people " remain a class trodden-on, yet simultaneously depicts altruistic elitism.
Is it the honest intention of anyone to "be advanced" not willfully at their own effort, but by "association by colour " and at the expense of others at any cost? I refuse to believe that was the original intent of the organization .
The NAACP has done good things since it was originated, yet realistically, contemporary society displays, even with endless effort by the NAACP, that caste or race prejudice remains a problem. Perhaps a thoughtful change in mandate, tactics, and public policy as well as a change in name is in order; optimistically, change could be beneficial.
Social change in any society, to be effective, demands more than a name or artificially imposed political or Utopian ideas; it requires ultimate persuasion and a vision of a substantial, beneficial future offered to all peoples simultaneously. All people must similarly be encouraged to dream of, undertake to act towards, and work for , genuine and positive social adjustment. Offering change to a specific class as defined by "colour" and association solely is a questionable process in it's entirety because the concept generates a primal friction of inequality, by perception or otherwise.
The NAACP has clearly demonstrated that social change can be made if enough effort is put into it . The NAACP has undoubtedly altered the social fabric of the United States with verifiable results, but additional change remains desirable.
Why is this discussion relevant to a Canadian? In Canada the "underground railroad" actually helped black American slaves escape, and the origin of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People was established, curiously, in a meeting in Canada, at Niagra Falls , yet Canadian society remains, a hundred years later, tainted with racism , just as any contemporary study of American society reveals.
The fact of the matter is, unbelievably, hidden and overt racism by association does exist to some degree in Canada as it does in the United States in spite of the tendency of our society to suppress the reality perhaps a little more successfully under the guise of official multi cultural policy .
Reverse racism also appears to be alive and well at times. Careful, socially-oriented, polite Canadians seem to be subject to a social policy created and recommended by unrealistic designers of society. As a result it is not surprising to note an undercurrent of dissatisfaction across Canada if only because of questionable political process repeatedly used to effect change.
All across North America, true equality of all peoples must inevitably replace the currently prescribed, "government approved" society, which in some aspects is a failure apparent to everyone but the creators of the policies.
That quandary may be best answered by this question: Does the "name" of a creative policy or an association designate social progress, equity, satisfaction and guarantee intent? The ultimate answer must be No.
Can the same name infer otherwise? Yes. A name can be a two-edged sword.
Just as the manipulation of society or integration of schools will not change the fact that people are different, skin colour and all, western society including the NAACP will not change that ultimate fact of life in America using politics of exclusion, or by standing still with the status quo. Much beneficial work remains to be done.
In answering the original question, the NAACP could benefit positively from not only a name change, but perhaps also a revitalization of mandate, approach, and practice. In spite of visions projected, as with any organization, "first impressions" are offered only at the gate; most effective change is initiated by good hearts and open doors.
It seems the idea of changing the current name of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People may be a fine example of a good opportunity not yet taken. .
-
1. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/NAACP
Learn more about this author, Raymond Alexander Kukkee.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
First, a necessary disclaimer: I'm white. That is not an overexposed photograph on my Helium profile. (Well, all right, maybe it is, but not that much.) As such I don't exactly feel qualified to have a real opinion about an organization expressly put together to assist people of color. It's their organization, not mine; they can run it as they like. And they don't need me to make that pronouncement, either. I'm making it more for the white people reading, frankly.
With that out of the way, although I'm probably a little better informed about racism than your average white American who isn't a member of any pro- or anti-racism group, I haven't been keeping up with news about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Therefore, I'm not sure what is meant about a "name change" as suggested in the title of this debate. I have a few ideas, though, so I'll address each in turn.
The first possibility is that the NAACP is finding itself mired in yet another argument about what we should all call people of color. Some of my readers will be familiar with the way discussion about people of African descent has evolved in this country since the 1950s. I doubt this is the issue at the center of the name-change debate, however, because it went out of vogue to refer to African-Americans as "colored" sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. If they had a problem with the NAACP's name, they would have changed it then.
There's also the point that people of African descent are not the only "colored people" in the United States, and that it has become somewhat accepted, at least on the Internet, to refer to people who are not white as "people of color." This is to completely remove the notion that being white is some kind of "normal" standard from which people who are not white deviate, as was implied in the term "non-white." In that context, what the acronym NAACP stands for is completely appropriate; "colored people" is just a short form of "people of color."
The second possibility is that people outside of the NAACP think it has strayed far from its original purpose due to corruption within the organization. If an organization's internal corruption is bad enough to justify a name change, I could think of a few choice new names for the Republican Party. Let's get serious here.
(Yes, yes, the Democrats are corrupt too. I know. Let's not descend into childish whining about how your side's not bad because mine's bad too, please, especially as I consider myself a Green who only votes for Democrats because she can't stand theocrats. End of digression.)
The third possibility, and the one I think is most likely, is that people outside the NAACP think the organization has outlived its usefulness because there is no longer any serious racism in the United States. Pardon me while I laugh a whole lot. There, I feel better.
If racism is over in the United States, how is it that poor urban neighborhoods have such a large concentration of people of color, particularly those of African descent? You can't just run out and grab money if you want to be well-off, you know. You must either work for someone else or run your own business. If you work for someone else, that person has to decide to hire you. They also get to decide how much to pay you. Right there are two opportunities for racial discrimination to occur that would keep a person in poverty. Most U.S. states are hire-at-will states, as well, making discrimination very hard to prove. If you run your own business, you will only do as well as it is possible to obtain customers. If you're stuck in a neighborhood that whites consider "bad" on account of the racial makeup, if you can't rent a storefront in a "better" neighborhood because the landlord "just happened" to decide to rent to a white person instead, or if you manage to get the "good" storefront anyway but whites just won't come in and browse, how do you get ahead?
If racism is over in the United States, how is it that a white person and a person of color driving the exact same year, make, and model of vehicle experience such radically different outcomes? The white person as often as not is asked for license and registration, friendly banter takes place, and the white person is on his way without incident. The person of color may expect to be searched for drugs and arrested on the most ridiculous pretexts possible. You can't even reach into your pocket for ID on the street if you are a person of color who encounters police because they will likely shoot you to death because they "felt threatened." Especially if they outnumber you ten to one.
If racism is over in the United States, why is it that every time we have a national conversation about welfare and other War On Poverty benefits, the first image that comes to mind for the average white American is that of a poor black single mother, when there are more whites than blacks on welfare? Don't go blaming Ronald Reagan and his "welfare queen" comments. You can think for yourself, right? You can read statistics, correct? You have Internet access right now and know how to use Google, don't you?
If racism is over in the United States, why is it that on the rare occasion I have access to cable TV, and I'm talking about in the past five years here, I can find a TV advertisement for a cell phone company that portrays a white guy pointing his phone at a black woman on a city bus and making her pole-dance for him? I'm sure there was a lot of protest when that ad came out, and I'm sure the cell phone company yanked it, but what kind of mind invents something like that to begin with? What kind of mind approves it for broadcast, both at the cell phone company and at the cable TV broadcasting company? How many of you weren't outraged at seeing it, much less inclined to call and complain about it?
If racism is over in the United States, why could I as a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center access hundreds-yes, hundreds-of hate crime records from any given recent year that never seemed to make it into the national media? We're not just talking about name-calling, although that is bad enough; we're talking about attacks brutal enough to cause brain damage or death. Can we say with a straight face that racism "isn't that bad anymore even if it still exists" if we don't even hear about it happening?
If racism is over in the United States, how do you explain what happened after Hurricane Katrina? (Hint: The correct answer is not, "Oh well, that's the South." I believe we fought a war back in the late nineteenth century on the premise that the South is, in fact, a part of the United States. And you don't have to look far to find racism up North today, either.)
It's very easy for white people to say that black people feel they can only "advance" themselves with an organization behind them. We have an organization behind us too. It's called "the old-boy network." It works better for white men than white women, but whiteness is still an advantage in this country, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention. What's more, they haven't wanted to do so, because if they had, they would know better than to suggest that political disadvantage can be reduced to individual weakness-as usual, blaming the victim, which is a cowardly, dishonorable thing to do.
Yes, I think the NAACP should keep its name just as it is. Again, my opinion doesn't really matter to those the NAACP serves, but I hope it matters to others of my own race. We still have a long, long way to go.
Learn more about this author, Dana Seilhan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
