Another View of the NAACP — Part Four
by Al Benson Jr.
Up to this point I have dealt with the undue amount of Jewish influence in the early NAACP (and later), dealing with the fact that this organization had no real black president until the mid-1970s and I have pointed out the leftist influence on the group, along with some of the rather corrupt black leadership that finally emerged. Let it suffice to say that little or none of this really benefitted the ordinary black people that the NAACP purported to be trying to help. But, then, is anyone really surprised?
And, not surprisingly, those leftist chickens finally came home to roost. By the early 1990s the NAACP was in big trouble. The organization was in serious debt and forced to cut its staff from over 200 to somewhere around 50. According to Ted Sampley, writing in the U.S. Veteran Dispatch in December, 2007: "Strained for funds, the group suffered another bleeding wound when its board of directors was forced to fire its new executive director, the Rev. Benjamin Chavis. He was caught spending $324, 400 of NAACP funds as hush money in a sexual discrimination suit." Mr. Sampley noted that the NAACP was "Drowning in internal corruption…" So the organization desperately needed a diversion, some hot-button issue that would stir the emotions, rally the troops, (and exploit their checkbooks). They found their needed diversion in the Confederate flags flying over government buildings and in parks in various Southern states. Here was something that could be used to inflame the passions of the uninterested (and uninformed)–start spreading the story that these flags all represented racism, white supremacy, and slavery–and if you could spread this cultural fertilizer far enough and long enough then some folks would start to actually believe it and the big bucks would come rolling in.
So the NAACP stopped even thinking about the real problems that plagued blacks in their daily lives (if they had ever thought along those lines) and they started going after Confederate symbols with a vengeance. Mr. Sampley noted that: "The NAACP has proven itself ignorant of Southern history. Judging from its members’ growing obsession with all things Confederate, it appears the group simply hates the South, its white people, its heritage and its symbols." I’d say that’s a fairly accurate assessment. They’ve stated that the Confederate flag is "a blight upon the universe." Even more fertilizer!
It’s interesting that Elizabeth Wright, a conservative black lady from New York has written in defense of the Confederate flag. Mrs. Wright obviously doesn’t swallow all the NAACP hogwash they spread around and she thinks for herself, as her writing clearly show. Mrs. Wright has written: "To justify trampling on the rights of Confederates, their enemies intrude extraneous arguments about slavery, segregation and past attitudes of bigotry. Yet it is clear that the only true issue here is one of constitutional rights. Do white southerners have the same freedom of expression as blacks? The NAACP claims that blacks experience ‘hurt feelings’ and ‘feel uncomfortable’ when viewing symbols such as the Confederate flag…Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the display of any flag is protected by First Amendment rights, this fact appears to be lost on those who would protect black sensibilities." In other words, if a few black malcontents somewhere don’t like a Confederate flag it is automatically supposed to be taken down so their feelings won’t be "hurt." Those people obviously do not think that whites have the same rights they do. If they put up a flag or something else offensive to whites, then the whites are just supposed to learn to live with it. There is no thought of removing it if whites get "hurt feelings" over it. We just have to learn to live with it or else we are all racists, yet they expect whites to instantly remove what they don’t like and they seek to get their personal prejudices enacted into law. Makes you wonder who the real racists are.
Mrs. Wright has observed: "A common belief among many blacks is that civil rights pertain only to them. It is considered acceptable for me, a black woman, to celebrate May 19, the birthday of Malcolm X, yet a white person who revered Jefferson Davis is expected to hide his reverence in a closet. One would think that, of all groups, blacks would be the last to pick other people’s heroes for them." And she notes one very telling point that most leftist black radicals neglect to mention. She says "Preventing the display of the Confederate flag and other southern memorabelia has nothing to do with lessening ‘anguish’ among blacks, but has everything to do with asserting power." Read that one again. Let it sink in. Asserting black power is truly the name of the game. And the groups that push this sort of thing, the NAACP in their forefront, really don’t care about the feelings of black folks, contrary to all their pious bleating. They seek the exercise of political power to force their wishes upon others. They set themselves up as the arbiters of what’s right and wrong and if you dare to disagree with their vaunted opinion, why you must be some sort of a racist! It’s all a political shell game designed to drive their opponents into submission and to keep the financial coffers full.
I do not believe the NAACP has ever truly been concerned with helping black people with the problems that plague their race (not that other races don’t have these same problems, they do). But the NAACP’s real agenda is trashing those people and symbols they don’t agree with. Those folks that label them as a hate group are probably not far off the mark. And let’s not forget that many of the Confederate symbols are Christian in origin–and I’m sure those in the NAACP that attack them are aware of that–which sort of reveals where the NAACP is really coming from.
Copyright ï¿½ 2006-2009 Al Benson, Jr.
On The Web: http://albensonjr.com/naacp4.shtml