Los Angeles civil rights attorney and radio talk show host Leo Terrell (search), who has made headlines in recent years for defending friend O.J. Simpson, and speaking out against the Bush administration, accused the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (search) of "an old-fashioned backdoor power-play," and vowed to use his weekly radio show to incriminate the 94-year-old civil rights organization. "How dare the NAACP tell me who I can or cannot endorse on an individual basis. That is the part that makes this so outrageous," Terrell told Foxnews.com. "I am going to tell the whole world what the NAACP did to me." Terrell said he has been a vocal supporter of California judge Carolyn Kuhl (search), nominated by President Bush to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search). The Senate vote on her confirmation was postponed until September by Democratic opponents who cite legal briefs she wrote in the 1980s under the Reagan administration to suggest her record is too far to the right on privacy, civil rights and abortion.57 responses total.
Not only can the NAACP tell him who he can endorse, but *I* can tell him who he can endorse, and I say he can only endorse either Posh Spice or Sporty Spice. Definately not Scary Spice or Ginger Spice.
Oh man, not Girl Power!
Nice try, Jan, but you've only mentioned FOUR of the FIVE Spice Girls. You'll have to provide 5 different sources, all of which I'll freely denigrate as "hopelessly biased" before posting yet another straw-man argument about the Backstreet Boys.
This response has been erased.
Why is Bruce entering items about the Backstreet Boys anyway? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's about some guy named Leo Terrell. We're supposed to guess what the NAACP did to Leo to get his dander up, and why he thinks it makes any difference who he endorses for the 9th Circuit Court. Like Bush is going to listen to him or something.
*yawn*
just showing the NAACP for the racist organization they are.
This response has been erased.
No. Its because the "C" stands for "colored" and that is a racist term for blacks.
Maybe racist is the wrong word. But they sure try to force people to believe as they do. Maybe they are a religion?
How are they forcing this guy? #0 doesn't explain it; it just says they're telling him not to endorse someone. You tell us shit all the time, and I don't think you're forcing me to do it.
Anyone is allowed to tell virtually anyone to do virtually anything. The NAACP not only tells people who to endorse, it actually has the nerve to tell people who to vote for. So does the NRA, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club. This is not exciting or scandalous. If the NAACP kidnapped this guy's kids and threatened to give them to George Bush for adoption unless he endorsed their candidate, then we'd have a news story. However, if the NAACP is engaged in any kind of intimidation beyond "if you don't do it our way, you won't be one of us" then there is no hint of it in the story above. I also don't see where you see "racism" in the story above. Is there anything particularly racial going on there? There is a sort of thing some might called racism, but that could be equally well found in any newspaper story that even mentions the NAACP. Look at the name: National Association for the Advancement of Color People They are "for" a particular race. If you broaden the definition of racism enough so that doing anything in a non-color-blind manner is racism, then clearly the NAACP is racist, and we can determine this without reference to the news story quoted above, which is just as well, since that news story is so utterly lacking in content. Of course, if we are dumb enough to accept that definition, then it is impossible to be opposed to racism. If your countrymen are holding all black people as slaves, you can't work to try to free them, because then you'd be working for the exclusive benefit for one race, and thus you'd be just as racist as they are. Darn it, you might as well throw in the hat and just let the slaves remain slaves, rather than stoop to the same moral level as the slave owners. Either that, or that definition of racism is absurd.
This response has been erased.
Btw, "coloured" is coloured opposed to???
White.
Historical review for non-Americans: The terminology for Afro-Americans has gone through a century of torture. At different periods, different names have had different connotations. I'm not sure I have it all right, but I think "Negro" used to be the polite word, while "Nigger" was the most popular impolite term. Early in the civil rights movement, "Negro" was rejected, and "Colored" became the prefered replacement. It's during that period that the NAACP was started. "Colored" fell into disfavor and is now, like "Negro" mostly just obsolete (at one time using these words would have branded you a racist, but now you'd be more likely thought just plain time-warped, like an escapee from a "Leave it to Beaver" episode). "Afro-American" was, I think the next wave. "Black" tried to displace it, and mostly did, but I don't think "Afro-American" ever became offensive - just awkward. "Nigger" never went obsolete, and is still offensive, except when it isn't - it's very context sensitive and the rules for when it is OK to use are complex enough that amatures should just avoid it completely. It's meaning has also shifted. "White nigger" now means some something, though I'm not sure exactly what. All this time whites have been "whites". An Indian in the US is usually not any of these things, though in the backwoods of Texas, Indians are generally mistaken for either Blacks or Hispanics and have been known to run into some trouble. Actually, I used to know a Indian immigrant named "Ronald Fernandez". I think he could actually be legally considered Hispanic in Texas, since the key requirement seems to have been a "Hispanic surname" not any kind of Hispanic heredity. Basically, race in America is a huge mess.
There's a funny story about some black activist in the 70s ranting about the use of "Colored" in the name of the NAACP being racist, when Thurgood Marshall was within earshot. Marshall told him something to the effect of "Shut the hell up; that word was good enough when we founded the NAACP and fought so you could go to college." (Two notes here: Marshall's response was probably ruder than that -- he was known for colorful language -- and Marshall began his public career as an NAACP attorney in Brown v. Board of Education. Not someone who suffered fools gladlt.)
Re #16: The NAACP was founded in 1909, long before the modern civil
rights movement. I think the sequence of "polite" terms for Americans
of African descent, starting with the earliest I can remember (1940s)
was this:
Negro -from my earliest memories until around 1965
Black -mid-1960s until sometime in the 1970s
Afro-American
African-American
I'm not sure where "Colored" fits into all this. Given the NAACP's
choice of name in 1909, it must certainly have been in common use
in the early 20th century, and not considered derogatory.
(Marshall began his high profile public career long before Brown v. Board of Education, but well after 1909).
This response has been erased.
Heh, white isn't a colour?? A large number of Indian christians can trace their lineage to Portugal hence the hispanic sounding last names.
Was it that clear Pepsi stuff they were trying to sell a few years ago? ;)
Does the NAACP help any other colors other than the one of their skin?
Re #19: I should have said something to the effect that prior to being on
the Supreme Court, he was best known for Brown.
This response has been erased.
I think that John is right and I was wrong about the sequence of the terms. Some people did try to claim that "black" was offensive for a while, but it never really stuck and "black" is still in common usage. In America, all of these terms have very little to do with skin color. They refer specifically to the descendents of Africans who were enslaved in America. A recent immigrant from Nigeria is only sort of "black", no matter how dark his skin. If he looks "black" then he is often going to be treated that way, and many blacks have sort of sentimental attachment to the "old country" and feel they have some commonality with Africans, but an African- American is no more an African than an Italian-American is an Italian. Which is probably why the terminology game finally ended up with "African-American". Awkward though it is, it is at least a precise word for the set of people we were describing with all those other words all along. So, no, the NAACP is not interested in any random people whose skins are not transparent. "Colored" has a very specific meaning in that context, and that isn't it. I suppose they could change their name, but NAAAA is a silly name, and the NAACP name has far too much history behind it to be scorned now. Actually, I have no idea what "people of color" means.
whoopie goldberg
my "white" friend from s. africa applied for educational grants for "african-americans".
I always use "black". "African American" is a bit of a mouthful.
I say they should just call themselves american and have done with it.
In the best of all possible worlds, certainly. But when I encounter a black man on the street, blackness is still the first thing I notice and I have many associations with that impression, which, in spite of my best efforts, color my thinking. When we are all past that, then we can throw away the labels. As long as we all percieve a "thing" there, we will want a name for it.
i think this is due to the fact that there is still pretty severe segregation in the US, mostly economic. i don't notice someone's color first anymore after having lived for 6 years in a dominantly 'black' neighborhood where _I_ was the minority, and everyone looked at me firstly being white.
Here in DC, I rarely notice color - I go home to Tecumseh and someone who is black seems to stand out.
This response has been erased.
re:30 *they* probably don't really care what *you* think, stinky
There aren't many Negroes in Cobourg, but, you know what, I saw one just to-day, some Negroe with a white kid: What the fuck else are the Negroes going to do, but get white friends?
This response has been erased.
re resp:28: I speculated about someone doing that a half dozen years ago; a descendant of white South Africans applying for African American scholarships. How did it work out for your friend? re resp:33: I've talked to two black co-workers about moving to Clinton or Tecumseh. I warned them both that Clinton is almost 100% white, and Tecumseh is nearly so. In 6 years of having kids go to Clinton schools, I knew only one black student in Clinton.
Yes, but do Clinton/Tecumseh have the, ah, "racially pure" social heritage of the Brighton/Howell/Fowlerville corridor?
I vaguely remember hearing something about the KKK around Brighton, several years ago. I've never heard anything like that about Clinton or Tecumseh. But, dangit, I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if I did hear something along those lines someday. People choose to live where they're comfortable, and if people move to an all-white town, it's often because that's how they want to live. It's hardly impossible to believe that, in an all-white town, there are those who will go to extremes to keep their town all-white. I don't know of any bigotry near where I live, but I haven't looked for it. My brother lives in Pulaski, Tennessee, the town where the KKK was formed, and in the area where many of it's originators lived. I've never seen any bigotry there, either. Not myself I haven't.
The original KKK or the 20th-century KKK? The original post-Civil-War KKK was not the same 'organization' that exists now.
The KKK to which I referred was founded a year or two after the end of the Civil War in Pulaski, TN.
1924 at 4-6 million nationally, and 115,000 in Alabama The KKK wa founded on stoner mountain Georgia in 1915 after the founders watched "Birth of a Nation.
i can't remeber jep, and i'm not in contact with him anymore to ask unfortunately. i *think* he did get some grant money, after some hassel about whether his skin color would prevent this.
This response has been erased.
"Stoner" Mountain - Freudian slip? ;-)
This response has been erased.
I saw a motel near Coram, Montana called 'Stoner's Inn'.
This response has been erased.
I found that hilarious when I was out there. My friend, who has lived in the area all his life, had never seen the humor until then.
Hmmm.. I decided, while driving across the country this year, that the prize in the hotly-contested convenience-store division of this year's "What the hell were they thinking when they named that?" contest should go to South Dakota's "Kum-and-Go" stores, edging out last year's winner, Minnesota's "Pump-n-Munch" chain..
This response has been erased.
Re #51: I found that pretty funny, too. They're in Iowa as well.
Haha. I want to own a Pump-n-Munch someday. I'd put it right next to Jody Moroni's Sausage Kingdom. :)
Re 41 and others about the KKK: The name Ku Klux Klan has been used in three separate waves, with no organizational continuity. The original post-Civil-War KKK started as a social organization of ex-Confederate soldiers, evolved into a para-military one, and was crushed by federal troops. In 1915, the movie "Birth of a Nation" romanticized the original KKK and tremendously exaggerated its role in ending Reconstruction. As a direct result of the movie, a "new" KKK was organized, and it had millions of members all over the country, not just in the South, reaching a kind of peak in 1924. The sculptor of Mount Rushmore was a member. Though certainly racist, it was much less violent than the earlier and later incarnations. The founders swindled the membership out of reportedly millions of dollars. It died out by the 1930s. In the 1950s and 1960s, another new, secretive, and violent KKK was established, in response to the civil rights movement. However, there were and are numerous schisms and competing organizations each of which claim to be the "real" KKK.
According to my father, who lived and worked in Indiana during the 1920s, the second KKK incarnation controlled Indiana politics for a number of years.
The book _Them: Adventures With Extremists_ talks a bit about the current political disagreements between different KKK groups.
You have several choices: