For a while now, the NAACP has been incrementally moving closer to irrelevance. For most of my life, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been seeking advancement through victimhood. The problem with such a strategy is eventually, as the successes pile up, they become harder to attain, and as a result, the causes to champion increasingly grow absurd.
Whether it is reading a racial slur into the use of the term “Black Hole” in the context of an office in city government where things go in, and never seem to come back out, or getting their undies in a bunch about a talking greeting card that uses the same term, despite their insistence that it actually says something very different, the politics of victimhood has ill-benefitted those it was intended to help, first by selling the beneficiaries into a modern-day dependency by constantly telling them what they cannot do without the “help” of others, and then by making them look ridiculous with the progression of OUTRAGES! over the years. Lately, this has been accomplished by acting as if being offended makes them victims, as the “black hole” episodes have demonstrated. This still isn’t enough for them though. Now they have taken up the habit of ridiculous hyperbole to condemn activities they find offensive. Case in point? A recent formal event in South Carolina honoring the Confederacy, where guests celebrated the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. Protestors could not wait to register their displeasure with the attendees of the Secession Ball:
As blacks and whites gathered in the twilight with electric candles and signs for an NAACP protest, a predominantly white group of men in old-fashioned tuxedos and women in long-flowing dresses and gloves stopped to watch and take pictures before going into the Charleston auditorium where the ball was taking place.
Now I found this turn of phrase interesting. “Predominantly white men”. Are they predominantly white because the reporter was too lazy to find out if indeed there were non-white men present? Are they predominantly white because an honest accounting might reveal enough non-whites in attendance to make the protesters into the ones with the problem? I guess we’ll never know.
NAACP leaders said it made no sense to hold a gala to honor men who committed treason against their own nation for the sake of a system that kept black men and women in bondage as slaves. They compared Confederate leaders to terrorists and Nazi soldiers.
While it would be foolish to deny that slavery was one of the issue that the Civil War was fought over, it is foolish and disingenuous to pretend that it was the only issue. And the comparison to terrorists and Nazi soldiers? I don’t believe that these comparisons in any way seem serious when one looks to Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Jefferson Davis, and other prominent Confederates. Why is it whenever someone on the left doesn’t like someone on the right exercising their freedom of association or their freedom of speech, the disfavored are suddenly equated with Nazis and terrorists? I can acknowledge that it might have been a shocking charge at one time. Hell, it might have actually had the desired effect of “SHUT UP!!!” that certainly motivates such comparisons in the past. However, as more and more people are painted as Hilterian, and it starts to be applied to Uncle Ron, and Great-Grandpa, Fred from down the street, and the Barber, the less it seems like an epithet, and for some people, it becomes an indication that they are pissing all the right people off.
“The Germans had a heritage too. Why does South Carolina and America think this is the right thing to do?” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Burbage said the NAACP doesn’t help its cause with inflammatory rhetoric.
“Any group that wants to call our ancestors terrorists and compare them to Nazi soldiers, we will not negotiate with. We didn’t need to get their permission to put this thing on, or will we ever seek their permission. We do our thing, they’ll do their thing,” Burbage said.
Exactly right. And as long as these bullies keep trying to police our thoughts and actions, I foresee more pushback. As it should be. As long as groups such as the NAACP set themselves up as the thought police, entitled not just to question the thoughts of others, but to sit in judgment of those thoughts, and vested with the authority to prevent others from feeling the shame and anguish of being offended, the more cartoonish they will become.
I hear a timer ringing. The time for their relevance must be up.
PASTTIMES!!!!???? PASTTIMES???? Have you lost your mind?
I find it incredibly ironic that as we get deeper into the holiday season your intolerance grows in equal inverse proportion. First anti-gay and now pro-Confederacy. Are you only expecting a lump of coal this year, BiW? What gives?
Your article started on a decent premise. I too feel the NAACP is past its prime and I have said so on my blog. The “black hole” incident was ridiculous.
But then you go off into loony-land. Slavery was the bedrock issue behind the civil war. States rights? Yeah … damn right … states rights to own slaves. You can coddle yourself up there in the Pacific northwest but the southern plantations of the south ARE our death camps.
You may recall that I’ve mentioned before my outrage when I visited Atlanta on business one year and found them proudly offering tours of plantations. Southern culture my ass!
Germany lives in shame for what it did and rightfully so. We see no such shame from the South. They’re still pissed they “lost” the war. A number of them learned no lesson from it and live in constant resentment of government mandated civil rights enforcement.
And so what if some of the folks at the Confederate ball were black? That just makes them the worst kind of Uncle Tom fools who need to see a good lynching to get their head back on straight.
As I said, as the year winds down, you become more audacious in your assertions. I can only assume your court docket has got you overworked and overstressed.
Rutherford,
As I recall a few months back, you were somewhat in support of the tool who was equating civil war reenactors with people who dress up in nazi uniforms and march around giving the nazi salute.
The hyperventilation over this is equally stupid.
I’m not going to defend slavery. At best, it can only be explained as part of trying to understand the larger story of the nation, but it has no place in a society with our stated aspirations.
However, before you get all weepy about how the blue coats helped get your ancestors forty acres and a mule, you might consider the fact that the Commander In Chief did not intially approach the conflict as a means to settle the slavery issue, nor did all union troops fight to end the practice either. The war raged for over a year and a half before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, R.
A year and a half.
He’s also the guy who made it quite clear that it was about preserving the nation (and federal power), and that if he could do it while freeing no slave, he would, and if he could do it by freeing all slaves, he would.
The determination of new states joining the union was certainly an issue, R. One that Congress, with characteristic procrastination, continued to kick down the road until the issue simply became untenable, while at the same time, the North had managed to impose a system of tariffs designed to destroy the economy of the southern states. Economic warfare, states rights (more than just property ownership by the way…it was also about the ability of states to confront policies imposed externally that were ruinious to the indivual states themselves) had made what happened an inevitabilty.
That said, I know I can’t condemn people who fought for their states, their communities, and their homes. The average confederate soldier was no more a slave owner than the average yankee soldier was a crusading abolitionist. And their greatgrandchildren and great-great grandchildren have no more reason to feel ashmed for their forebears defending their homes than you have reason to demand reparations for having an ancestor who might have been a slave.
The reason that the conflict still resonates is because although it ended a great evil, it fortified another, and in so doing, creates a conundrum that only few seem able to see clearly. Rather than paint a picture that I’m not sure you can see enough around your own prejudices to grok, I’ll instead ask you to think about and answer a question.
While it is clear that the Union troops fought to preserve the nation and bring the secessionist states back into the fold, can you tell me why? Why was it imperitative to force the particpation of people who clearly thought the merits of the relationship were outweighed by the negatives?
Hey Rutherford. How-ya doin?
Your assumption that BiW’s court docket having him overworked and over stressed, kinda demonstrates that YOU have appointed yourself his thought-police now.
Lighten up. It’s Christmas.
Maybe you really don’t get how frustrating it can be to be white and the target of other people’s anger about their histories and painful issues that are NOT our fault.
Does it ever occur to you to ask BiW a clarifying question about his writing rather than to point your finger at him?
I’ve been pushed around, accused, labeled, sneered at, insulted, spit on, and worse by some blacks/people of color/Negroes/African-Americans probably because they ASSUMED they knew what was going on in my head and CHOSE to dislike me or take offense without my attitude or behavior being any part of their judgment. No one deserves that kind of treatment. But lots of us keep taking it.
When will we be permitted to take off the heavy mantel of this undeserved guilt? BiW’s article is grist for the mill. It helps to illustrate and dissect SOME of our conflicts… OURs! Yours and mine.
If we all truly care about the future and want to heal past brokenness, then it’s time to be willing to move into uncomfortable discussions, own your own stuff, stop trying to project shame on others, and effin’ listen for meaning.
States rights is an essential issue. Slavery is abolished, but the process used to abolish it left the South damaged economically. Some consider that damage to be irreparable. But States rights remains an unhealed sore — and given our current challenges — that sore has now begun to fester.
Cathy, the first thing you should know is that BiW and I have an Internet history that I would characterize as a friendly disagreement. I come out swinging but BiW ought to know (whether or not he cares) that I consider him an intelligent and highly decent man. I don’t think he has a bigoted bone in his body.
With that said, I think he clings to positions based on a clinical understanding of the Constitution and the law, that does not sufficiently take into account human complexity and feelings.
Judging from the great success of the Southern Toyota plants during the recent auto industry crisis while northern plants were in disarray and needed a bailout, I have trouble believing there is irreparable damage to the South’s economy. And if cotton is really their thing, pay white and black folks to pick it. Problem solved.
I don’t blame you or BiW or your children for slavery. You had nothing to do with it. I neither want nor expect reparations. What I want is a South that understands that there was a time when its culture was steeped in racism and based on that, they need to be selective about which aspects of their culture they celebrate in the 21st century.
And Cathy, as I’ve said before, all this current talk of Southern nullification and secession (based on the festering sore you alluded to) and its coincidence with our first black President, must make even the most casual observer a bit queasy.
But States rights remains an unhealed sore — and given our current challenges — that sore has now begun to fester.
You mean, yet one more issue that has been put off for another generation? Like who will reallypay for the cost of hormone injections for illegal ailiens who are also transexual and currently our guests in ICE custody?
Hint: While you and I will pay some of that cost…sooner rather than later, its our kids who will get the bulk of that bill…with interest.
Cathy, its always good to read your thoughts on the topic. 😉
I’m your wing-man BiW. AND I always learn something when I visit here. THANKS.
It was imperative because our country’s leaders knew then what we know now, namely that this was the most aspirational experiment in government ever to appear on the world stage. This country and its ideals were worth fighting for. And since the desire to quit us arose from a reliance on an economy steeped in racism, we felt that an inappropriate reason for the country to dissolve.
I know Lincoln was no huge “Negro advocate”. I know the quote where he said his top priority was keeping the country together. But he had also said that the country could not live slave and non-slave at the same time.
So because the goal it envisions is so good, government has the right to forcably keep people associated with it and part of the body politic?
I think I’m starting to understand the reason why you support the things that you do.
How do any of the freedoms that we are supposed to be guaranteed mean anything if we are forced to be part of something and in all things be subject to a central authority? Seriously. Because we became a natio of 57 states with a fluid economic class structure, and some unprecidented freedoms, the government had not just a right but a duty to force people who did not share their vision to remain associated with them anyway? Really? No wonder you don’t have a problem with the federal government declaring a right to abortion on demand, and summarily stripping the states of all authority over the subject. To hell with what a majority of the people might think; you or someone like you have decided that it should be a right, so that’s that. Tell you what. I have decided that because divorce is a bad thing, there can be no more divorce. That’s it. The practice is done. You get married, then it really is for better or for worse. Abusive husband? Doesn’t matter. You’re stuck with him. Unfaithful wife? Too bad, you have to stay married to the tramp, because the goals of marriage are so good.
You don’t have to like the reasons why the Confederates secceeded, R. The point is that the relationship no longer worked. There were irreconcilable differences. The southern states said “Fine, we want a divorce. We don’t have to be treated this way.” And it was the Union that said “Oh yes you do.”
I’ve certainly read quite a bit that suggested that as an institution, slavery wasn’t long for the world anyway. Economically, it was becoming far more difficult to justify, so killing it may have been as much a mercy killing as it was a fulfillment of the promises on which we were founded.
Btw, who says “negro” any more, besides Lou Rawls when he does the commercials for the UNCF?
…and its coincidence with our first black President, must make even the most casual observer a bit queasy.
Just so you know, I’m not connecting those dots. Are you?
Our problems have nothing to do with the color skin of the president. Honestly, R, most folks simply don’t care. Why does this come up again and again like a greasy pizza?
We have REAL issues we face with states rights being stepped on and hog-tied by the Feds.. Border security, crime, drugs, ILLEGAL immigration, and sovereignty are just the handful I can think of, but the list goes on… Playing the race card one more time won’t address the real issues.
Cathy, we have been down this road before (so at least I know we won’t get lost). Obama did not invent the oppressive Fed that so many in the country are “festering” about. It was Bush, not Obama who bailed out the banks. It was Bush, not Obama that doubled down on surveillance of American citizens, something that those upset about an overzealous Fed should have been screaming about.
The simple fact is, if we adopt the jargon of the Tea Party and like minded individuals, the country started “slipping away” from us years ago, plenty of time for rallies and web sites and silly hats … but there were virtually none until the White House changed hands.
Of course I can’t prove race has anything to do with it. And in deference to you this holiday season, I’ll offer up another very simple and perhaps more obvious hypothesis. Government over-reach only upsets some folks in this country when a Democrat is in the White House. No race card. Same result.
Rutherford,
I was no fan of TARP. Especially when much of it wasn’t used for the purpose intended. I’m positive you can find my posts grumbling about it, and the bailouts of the car companies.
The difference isn’t the race, it is Obama’s open (and hypocritcal) hostility to what some Americans have achieved.
Whether it was the idea that he was the one to decide that $250k a year is “enough”, or that some people “make too much money”, but he, a man with few accomplishments other than two memoirs, which made him a millionaire several times over, never seems to be included in it, and even if he did consider himself part of it, who was he to decide that someone who made less had made enough.
The difference is that Obama openly says things that demonstrate his concern is about the restrictions on government, not government’s restrictions on people.
The difference is that Bush had some humility. The emphasis was always properly placed, and you never got the sense that it was about what it meant to him. Bush never would have issued a statement about the Nobel Peace Prize winner that was as much about him as it was about the actual winner.
Yes, BiW, you and the Catholic church are in complete agreement on that. 😉
Simply using the language of Lincoln.
You are one complex dude and I say that without sarcasm. I don’t know whether you are deliberately contradictory or whether you see some subtlety that I am missing. On the one hand, you shriek whenever some minority with whom you do not sympathize has their “rights” defended but on the other hand you are an emphatic states rights advocate.
Let’s paint a stark picture so I can better understand your approach. And I will paint this picture in a way that doesn’t target the traditional target of liberals.
The Unites States has a serious overpopulation problem. Maine enacts forced sterilization of women after they have one baby (the Chinese one baby rule so to speak). Before the Fed can even lift a finger in objection, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York follow suit.
The Fed declares this practice inhumane and unconstitutional. The states say that it is irresponsible to ignore overpopulation and they will not cease their practice … and if the Fed does not back off, they will secede from the Union.
Do we let the northeast secede? Is there any principle worth fighting for to keep the nation as one? Can any act by the states be declared their protected right which can not be encroached without threat of secession?
I await your response.
I don’t know whether you are deliberately contradictory or whether you see some subtlety that I am missing.
It would actually be both.
The irony is that for someone who lands firmly on the Left side of the spectrum, you have a remarkable disability when it comes to identification of nuance, which is usually the excuse I hear so often from the Left as cover for their support of the absurd.
I still have some work to do before I am “on vacation”, but I believe that I have posed a question to you in the last thread as part of my response to your consent shibboleth, and you have yet to answer it. Of course, you had nothing to say about Mr. Jennings’ reaction to the young student’s “consent” issue, too.
I really cannot respond to this.
Not because it is a brilliant hypothetical, but because it is not.
Any state that completely abdicates one of its roles, protecting human life, has far more to fear from its citizens than it has to fear from a distant federal government. If the day ever comes when state or federal government ever imposed such a measure and it wasn’t immediately met with the sounds of gunfire, and loathsome public officials swinging from lamposts, then it would have ceased to be America.
Rutherford, the fact is that if the Union’s aims in the Civil War were not primarily about ending slavery, then it was about power and control, plain and simple. And the result was certainly that slavery was ended, but it was also a fundamental shift away from a balanced power structure where states were co-equal with the Federal Government because the Feds had a very narrow group of duties specifically delegated to it, and the rest belonged to the states and the people, to one in which the states were now subserviant to the Federal government, which was NEVER what was intended or envisioned by the Framers.
If the Federal Government was willing to fight a war to keep states under its control once, it will be willing to do it again. You might keep that in mind, given the deep and growing cultural divide in this country, and the various potential events that could once again spark civil disobedience or outright rebellion…such as Congress determining that the Federal Government will bail California out of its impending bankruptcy…forcing all of us to pay for the bad choices of California elected officials and citizens, and extravagant public employee pensions.
You must be kidding here.
Do you know the rate of recidivism of child molesters? If ever there was a crime driven by natural instinct of the perpetrator, sex crimes against children are it. Do all the “bleeding hearts” make excuses for pedophiles to the extent that they pass laws that protect them? And we are not even talking about a physically violent crime in many cases. Men go to jail for inappropriate touching. What drives our legislative priorities in this matter? Consent. Plain and simple. So please don’t tell me that consent is trumped by bleeding heart excuses. Even you have to admit that is a distortion.
My apologies … this belonged in the previous thread. I just realized it … I’ll copy it where it belongs.
Rutherford, you were so kind to me in your recent response. Thank you. Yes — there is a God. Haha! *hugs* Maybe we WILL meet face to face, and if we do, I hope we can hug and enjoy that beer or whatever.
In defense of my Tea Party principles, I’ll remind you that the Tea Party is not a political party and will never become one. We communicate principled politics. We aim our word-weaponry as much if not MORE at the RINOs than just the Dems, just so you know. If you are paying attention to what is going on in the Texas House of Representatives right now, you will know what I’m talking about. These are the toughest of times for us in Texas.
I personally think we are RINO hunters first and foremost. I still need to get that T-Shirt. Haha.
Also — I’ve got a great amount of respect for President George W. Bush. He did his best to remain a decent caring human being and a lot of what he did was not projected on others. He kept a lot of what he did to himself. He does not pound his chest and say things like “Hey, look at me, aren’t I something? Gimme accolades.” George simply didn’t need that to do his job. He gets my respect. He was not perfect and many of us did a lot of eye-ball-rolling while he was in office. I’m a Christian first and foremost. I pray for and do my best to be respectful of the office of the President — no matter who the person is. I pray for Obama and I prayed for Bush. That POTUS is one tough job.
But please, Rutherford, keep in mind that when you point your finger at our George W. you must also point your finger at Dems who were in control of both houses of congress for much of his presidency who pushed and battered to get their way on many things that you brought up. George W. was making decisions based upon this pressure he was getting along with the incredible challenges he faced that were out of his control… 9/11, the wars, Katrina, the Tsunami, other natural disasters, the economy, a liberal media, and a liberal congress. Obama was part of this congress. He is also responsible for his part in the influence and votes he made.