Distinctions and differences

Here's a question that seems to stump some people. Why is the idea of a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People different from the idea of a National Association for the Advancement of White People?

Give up?

The NAACP was founded in 1909 by a group of people that was actually majority white, and its officers were mostly white, although the founders did include some of the most prominent African American leaders, including W.E.B. DuBois and Ida Wells. ("Colored people" was a polite term at the time for people of African descent, although of course it's quaint today.) What many people apparently don't know was that following emancipation, a reign of terror arose in the former slave states in which thousands of black people were murdered, the freed slaves were deprived of the vote and returned to a state of subjugation including re-enslavement by means of a the prison system and a modified form of plantation slavery called sharecropping.Even in the north, African Americans were deprived of educational opportunity, economic opportunity, and political representation.

Therefore, many people of diverse backgrounds saw the need for an organizational that would advocate for civil rights and equality.

There was actually an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People. It was founded by former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke in 1979. It lasted for at least 20 years but seems to be defunct now. The obvious distinction would seem to be that, relative to other groups in the U.S., white people didn't need "advancement." They were, and still are, the dominant group in society with, on average, the highest educational and economic attainment, and political representation.

Ergo and ipso facto, the NAACP worked for and still works for justice and equality. The NAAWP and like organizations work to preserve injustice and inequality. The NAACP opposes discrimination, the NAAWP promotes discrimination.

Now, there are Americans of European descent (who by shorthand we call "white" although of course we are actually more beige) who are poor and oppressed. But they are oppressed by class, not race. Politicians such as one who is not beige, but orange, often deceive them by convincing them that there circumstances are somehow the result of "others," such as people of African descent or immigrants from Latin America, taking what is rightfully there's. But this is false. Their circumstances are created by rapacious capitalists and an economic system that produces losers of all ethnicities and leaves people mired in intergenerational poverty. The wealthy and powerful use race as a wedge to divide the working class and prevent people from uniting effectively to bring about a more just society.

This distinction also seems to elude people with respect to other movements, such as Black Lives Matter. Bernie Sanders famously responded to a change of Black Lives Matter with the comment that "all lives matter." Bernie, alas, was missing the point, which is precisely that all lives matter. That's what BLM activists also believe. The problem they are confronting is that too often, Black lives specifically don't seem to matter. They are demanding justice.

Now, what about the idea of "identity politics"? Well, it is only natural for oppressed groups to demand an end to their oppression through the political process, and politicians might try to appeal to such a group by promising to work for justice. You can call that "identity politics" if you like, but I don't see anything wrong with it. On the other hand it seems like a dumb idea to vote for somebody just because they happen to belong to the same ethnic group as you do, even if they are otherwise a worse choice. (I would say however that when your people have had little or no access to political office, just breaking the barrier would seem to have some value in its own right.)

What I do see something wrong with is voting for a politician because she or more likely he promises to preserve your privilege, in other words to fight for injustice. I also think it would be wrong to care more about the fate of people who happen to share your religion or ethnic background than you do about other people, here or abroad. As I say, the real point of Black Lives Matter is that All Lives Matter. If you can't understand that, it isn't worth my time or energy trying to engage with you.

Update: The mission of this blog is to have intelligent conversations with people who share humanistic values and respect the truth. People who do not wish to engage in that project will not participate.