Thats what it says but is that what they do? Or do they automatically decide based on opinion that white people dont need their rights fought for? That Asians dont need their rights fought for? Thats sounds more opinon driven than an actual statement of fact.

With all due respect, you're operating on a logical breakdown. First, tell us what struggles that you have heard of that you feel should have been addressed by the NAACP but were ignored/denied by the NAACP?

The relative rarity of whites being represented by the NAACP is not automatically a result of the NAACP's refusal to address such issues. Whites (including poor whites) have historically, and presently, many avenues to address concerns because they are the numerical and power majority in America. Therefore, whites have a very small likelihood of ever calling on the NAACP, which adds to the NAACP's tendency to reserve its resources and voice for those who have fewer avenues.

A similar dynamic operates for Asians in America and, moreso, Asian Americans have traditionally struggled with balancing stereotypes as "model minority" and "middleman minority" with feeling confined to those roles. Concerns tend to be addressed within the Asian American community and the groups that represent this community (there are Asian American interest groups).

Again, the NAACP exists for a reason. Again (again), many of us see things at the local level that you may not see at your local level and the national level. Again (again and again), if it bothers you so much, join and make some changes. :)

I'm a member of neither. I'm okay with that.

There is nothing wrong with either org to me. I sorta like the Urban League a little better. It's more visible in my city. The NAACP is there, too, but for the reasons described above, I understand why I see the Greater Washington Urban League more.

Random: When I was fresh out of college, I considered joining the Thursday Network (the young professional auxilliary) but I dunno..... it seemed a little "stepping-stonish." Not really the kinds of people I wanted to be around.

And the NAACP chapter, I went to their annual gala and it seemed a little.... Thurston Howell III-ish.

Big ups to them in general though.

LOL!

I agree

That was my interpretation, not the actual wording. But I read ahead to Dr. Phil's post and she breaks it down.

LOL - "Thurston Howell III-ish". I have to remember to say this at the convention - I agree with you. Often, I think I'm the youngest person in meetings and was the youngest on the state executive committee.

Ok, so I picked up the Oakland Post this past Saturday an read that thing's are-a-changing. Ms. Roslyn M. Brock(44) has been elected to succeed Julian Bond (70). She is the 4th woman and the 1st of the post civil rights era to take the position. Naturally I went to the NAACP website to read more:

http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2010-02-20/index.htm

One of the things I read in the paper was her being quick to let her support of the Urban League, The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and other orgs "to advance our common agenda". She was quoted as saying "there is a misconception that the NAACP is a Black organization. It is not. It's a multi-racial, multi-ethnic organization. Our title 'People of color' or 'colored people' really speaks to those who are falling through the cracks, who feel locked out, our desire is to cast out our net broader".

So, it seems that the NAACP may be brought into this century in goals, attitude & actions. Time will tell.

I don't think Sister Brock has said anything that other persons engaged in the organization has said (by the way - she is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha).

Hmm just to throw in my two cents.

Because politically I do not agree with the NAACP. Does that mean I am a Republican...oh no not the case. I'm just a firm believer that no organization that will do any good for our community should be in bed with any political party and from what I see the NAACP has yet to make it to that point where we can hear differences of opinion and not go in attack mode because they do not agree with the beliefs of Black conservatives. (I know that is about to open a door, but I actually want that door opened.) We need to get to the point of, "Yes I may not agree, but I recognize that we are both striving for the same goal."

I'll stick with 100 Black Men and keep it in the community.

The NAACP is a non patrician organization as I well know. In fact, I held a state office and was threatened with having my membership revoked for participating in patrician activities while engaged with another organization but not representing the NAACP. The organization has a policy platform just like everyone else. If views differ from the any political party, the NAACP simply speaks to the effect of the policy.

I'm sure it is, but like all organizations unfortunately you are judged by who you are in contact with. Like Sensuret I said, earlier in this thread I believe (not in exact words), I respect the organization but where I live the members do not appeal to me and the type of lifestyle and representation I would like my name associated with. Thus is the life I suppose. Maybe if I lived in a different city when I came of age of being in the mindset of belonging to certain "big named" organizations to help the Black community.

I think the NAACP is much like fraternity chapters - some are stronger than others. We are members of a national organization. Chapters/Branches that don't meet our expectations is an opportunity for us join a make a difference.

Or find other organizations that are truly the right fit for us.

What does patrician mean?