Donald Trump is the first president in 116 years to not be invited to the NAACP convention
Donald Trump is the first president in 116 years to not be invited to the NAACP convention
The NAACP says it will not invite President Donald Trump to its national convention next month in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The NAACP announced Monday the group will not invite President Donald Trump to its national convention next month in Charlotte, North Carolina, the first time the prominent civil rights organization has opted to exclude a sitting president in its 116-year history.
NAACP President Derrick Johnson announced the move at an afternoon press conference, accusing Trump of working against its mission.
“This has nothing to do with political party,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our mission is to advance civil rights, and the current president has made clear that his mission is to eliminate civil rights.”
As it should be. They will lock you up, deport you, tread on your rights unless you're rich or powerful or pose a threat.
Politeness should have gone out the window long ago.
I love the fact that they didn't just not invite him, they held a press conference to announce it: "We're having a big party, and you can't come, because you're a big poopyhead."
Don't worry, he probably already has an invitation to a KKK or Proud Boys meeting that day.
What a weird scheduling mixup, the KKK rally and the proud boys meetup are being held at the same time, at the same place
At four seasons landscaping!
The fact that they invited Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and even Trump the first time around is appalling.
Maybe hoping to convince him, and now they've properly given up on fixing him?
Never gave up on any of the other demons the Republican Party produced, though.
If they had any hope in them it's embarrassing.
Giving those you're fighting against an opportunity to publicly embarrass themselves can have many advantages. It also paints you as a group who is open to a good faith discussion about topics you know you disagree with these people on, which helps to gain more general public support for your causes.
Ok, perhaps it's because I'm not American but it's ridiculous that they not once wrote what NAACP stands for.
It's a an old name that contains a deprecated and often insulting term for black folks: National Association for the Advancement of Colored people.
However, it's not quite a slur. If you're under the age of 70 and using it, you're almost certainly using it as a slur. Plenty of old black and white folk in the south still use it as it was the polite term when they were kids.
My mom’s first cousin never said anything but “colored” and she traveled to Nigeria to marry her second husband who was black and spent many years with him.
Some things I heard her say, “oh they just don’t like me because my husband is colored.” “If you see a colored man in a yellow shirt that says reading rainbow on it, tell him to get to the car or I’m leaving him here.” “I’ve never seen a white man more handsome than the ugliest colored man.”
“People of color” is also pretty much the same thing, and it’s almost universally used these days. What’s the difference between person of color and colored person?
I don’t know. Language changes and evolves, and it’s definitely falling out of fashion, I’ve never personally heard “colored” as an insult. If someone wants to be insulting they generally wear their hate on their sleeve.
I have a stamp that says, “Retarded children can be helped.” and it really isn’t that old. When it came out I doubt it shocked anyone, but when I first seen it my jaw hit the floor.
The group also noted that Republican President Ronald Reagan accepted its invitation during his first year in office. Civil rights leaders had criticized Reagan’s use during the 1980 campaign of the term “welfare queen” to refer to people abusing federal aid. The term was viewed by many as coded racial language for Black women.
He certainly meant all the white welfare queens! /s
I will now quote Lee Atwater in 1981, apologies for the offensive terminology, but these shitheads speak this way:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “
N----r, n----r, n----r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n----r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N----r, n----r.”Gosh, I wonder if they're (repubs) racist…?
This comment was reported for containing racial slurs. First off, thanks, good call.
That said, taking things into context and the fact that they're part of a direct quote providing historical context, I'm allowing the comment to remain for now for that reason.
@some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org If you wouldn't mind masking out the slurs (e.g. n----r), I think that might satisfy any potential concerns with regard to automods, content filters, or misunderstandings without diluting the gravity of the context it's providing.
Just FYI, that report from the automod is just that, a report, it's up to the human moderators to decide whether it's fine in the context or not, it wasn't meant as something that should be taken action on in each and every case.
Exclusion will annoy him more than criticism.
The surprising thing to me, if this is the first time in history, is that this means they invited him every year of his first term.
Man..... i had someone ask subreddit suggestions last night like wtf. Told them about lemmy and all but also pointed out why reddit might still be usefull but the way it is, is unhealthy. I pointed to r/conservative as one of many examples and saw this news sooner. The comments, jfc they just dont care, they think it's funny the NAACP has stooped so low, and the sheer lack of post about the parade was even more telling.
I still use old.Reddit for a few niche pocket of things as it still has some value to me. But instead of spending hours on it like I used to, I only spend like 20 mins on it and then I just get the fuck off.
“This has nothing to do with political party,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our mission is to advance civil rights, and the current president has made clear that his mission is to eliminate civil rights.”
Narrator:
It had everything to do with political party, as the GOP had made a primary part of their national platform and brand about ignoring racial injustice and the legacy of slavery, in addition to overt, callous racism.
And next year will be 117 years, then 118, then 119…
Winning?
Did they invite him during his first term?
They invited all the presidents. You try to bring in those with the power to change things and convince them that their actions have meaning, even symbolic ones. So, they probably tried his first term. It's clear now that he doesn't care and is in no way willing to help. I suspect that the reason they're not inviting him goes beyond that. They're making a statement. They're signalling to those who support their mission.
I looked through a different article and it said this: "Trump will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 not to speak at the conference at all, skipping it entirely in 2016 as the presidential nominee and again in 2017 and 2018."
So your man was invited but didn't come.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/naacp-breaks-with-116-years-of-history-to-snub-trump/
Good call Mr. Johnson. Although, listening to Krasnov's speech would be entertaining and humiliating at the same time.