by Wayne Leon Learmond

Created on: August 30, 2010   Last Updated: August 31, 2010

The NAACP must really move with the times if it is to remain relevant in the 21st century. The title alone is a misdemenour. It dates back to a time during the 1950s 1960s, when the civil rights movement was at its strongest - and when that title was more relevant. The majority of black people back then, saw themselves as a 'colour', and did not challenge the title of the organisation representing them. 

 But now, what do the words  'colored people' really mean? There is no such thing as a 'colored' person. The title alone suggest that there is something abnormal, and unnatural about being black, red or yellow. It is as if being 'white' [ or rather another shade of pink] is the 'norm'.

It is as if people are multi-coloured in some way, when 'colored' people is mentioned. There are many black people these days, [of all shades of black] who simply do not recognize that title.  Although the title is well-meaning, and in no way can be deemed to be 'racist', the title alone falls into the trap of being just that.

For one, the title suggests that this organisation is for those who are black only [which is not the case, because there are many white members of this organisation as well].  The title also suggests that the people who run this organisation still see themselves as a 'color' and not as an 'individual person'.

The NAACP was formed as a result of the barbaric lynching of two blacks in Springfield in 1908.  The response by white northerners to the murders was to respond to a call by Mary W Ovington, to discuss ways in which black people could achieve social and political equality.  Thus, the NAACP was born, in 1910.

Since that time, the NAACP over the years, has grown to become the biggest civil rights organisation in the United States.  Yet, it has continued to keep the same title. This title is uncomfortable for many blacks for the reasons stated above. For black people to fully recognize themselves as fully-fledged human beings in American society, then this organisation should really stop using the the words that are part of their title: 'colored people'.

I am a person, a human being, and I also recognise that I have brown skin. But what I am not -and what I refuse to see myself as - is a 'color'. The NAACP really must move with the times and see themselves now as a modern, progressive organisation. They must stop this 'tagging' of themselves because it defeats the object of what they are trying to do.

But the problem is the fact that they are a civil rights movement who was founded on exactly that: the advancement of 'colored' people. There are two strains of thought here, those 'traditionalists' who remember the blood shed in the past, and who wish to keep the name as it stands. Their philosophy would be to keep the name, as it is, a reminder to them of all those people who marched with the organisation and died for their civil rights throughout the years.

The name has also become synonymous, recognizable and historical. To many, the organisation is a major part of American history, that should not be tampered with in any way, shape or form. But, having said all that, the debate remains, that in the 21st century, should members of this organisation really still see themselves as a color?

Learn more about this author, Wayne Leon Learmond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.