NAACP calls for March on Washington to be held on October 2, 2010

[Better Believe It]

NAACP president announces Oct. 2 march on Washington
By MEREDITH RODRIGUEZ
The Kansas City Star
July 12, 2010


NAACP members will march in Washington, D.C., in October to draw attention to social problems that have intensified during the recession, the organization’s president said Monday night.

At the NAACP’s 101st annual convention at Bartle Hall, Benjamin Todd Jealous asked the country to join the NAACP on Oct. 2 to rebut division that he said the tea party has created and to fight together against ills such as foreclosures, joblessness, failed schools, urban violence and racism.

“Fire up the troops of hope, unity and justice in this nation,” Jealous said. “This fall, we are going to lead a great and mighty army that looks like America.”

Audience members held signs with the title of the movement, “One Nation,” along with “Revive,” “Organize” and “10-2-10.”

A month before the November election, marchers will demand the change they voted for when Barack Obama was elected, Jealous said. They will keep their senators accountable to regulate lenders, create jobs and stop moving money out of education and into wars and prisons.

Read the full article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/12/2079440/naacp-president-announces-oct.html

If the labor movement, Latino organizations and other progressive groups get behind this and decide to go all out to build a March on Washington for jobs that could represent the beginning of building a mass movement for changes we need can believe in.

A few hundred thousand angry working people marching on Washington would have a huge impact. We need to start somewhere and this might be it. BBI

[corpseratemedia]

1. agree

I think a lot of people would also join up who object to the goals of the deficit reduction committee and the IMF.


Wouldn't it be awesome if it were millions, because it'll certainly be in heart and soul.

[Donnachaidh]

2. so why can't this be done SOONER?

OCTOBER?

What are the folks who need help NOW supposed to do in the meantime? I know logisitics is probably involved, but 4 months?

[Better Believe It]

5. That will give everyone and all organizations time to sign on to this action and build it.

No one will be able claim there wasn't enough notice or time to build a mass demonstration.

I think three and a half months is just the right amount of time.

DU'ers will have plenty of time to promote this demonstration and win endorsements in their respective organizations.

[Donnachaidh]

6. True.

But I'm a cynic. I want this to be about the MIDDLE CLASS and POOR, and not turn into yet another photo-op for a final push to keep the *status quo* that's ignored the problems.

[Newest Reality]

3. While many of us strongly support the

tenets of the NAACP and consider equality an important and historical issue ...

I find an odd disconnect or, cognitive dissonance in how the more visible and vocal organizations are funded.

We know how the Right supports the corporatacracy and uses manipulative rhetoric right down to pure, unadulterated bullshit, to sway the opinions of those who are pliable or willfully ignorant. However, we don't tend to pay attention to something more insidious and sometimes, questioning any groups that seem to be advocating for the oppressed and downtrodden seems counter-intuitive and might even be taken as an attack.

Just for the record, and stating that I don't believe at all that philanthropic organizations provide money just for the sake of being altruistic and benevolent, (and knowing that the money comes with policy strings and strong influences) I will ponder the relationship of these benefactors and wonder how responses and events can just as much be a intentional channeling of people and resources in order to prevent other actions that can be threatening to the entrenched system that is preserving itself in the long run and giving us what appear to be efforts towards much-needed social change.

As the stakes rise rapidly now with each day, the underlying flow of funds is something to consider and to question. I for one see the profit motive as the sole motivation for corporations and philanthropic foundations, so therefore, I ask, what do those on the list below want and get from their "contributions" to change? What have we seen so far and where is it leading us? I am not criticizing or attacking those receiving the funds, or their stated goals or purposes. I am questioning influences that might be far more substantial than we realize and could be a hidden problem.

"The NAACP receives large amounts of funding from the AT&T Foundation, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Boston Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the JEHT Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sara Lee Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Verizon Foundation, and the Tides Foundation."

[Luminous Animal]

9. Your information comes from the reactionary David Horowitz Freedom Center.

I am questioning your motives for posting it here.

[Newest Reality]

11. No ulterior motive, nor is this specific to the NAACP.

Despite the source you mention, that information is available elsewhere.

My motive is to look into who funds what and why. That's merely a note and a suggestion to pay some attention to the money flow.

I am not following any of the left vs. right and liberal vs. conservative agendas, (as you see many sites and organizations do by implying this or that about funding) as should be obvious from what I wrote. I would say I am being a classist.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Your quoted passage came directly from Horowitz who, by the way, is not known

for his honesty.

Your quote, with no attribution and no link, is a snip from a website created by one of the worst reactionaries in the U.S. And yes, the information is available elsewhere. And as I suspected, nearly every single other blog or discussion board that also includes your block quote are right wing blogs... several of who state that their goal is to bring down the NAACP.

[laughingliberal]

13. Thanks. nt

[Newest Reality]

14. I see your suspicion.

Though, please note the actual content of my post.

I never mentioned bringing down the NAACP or the ACLU or any other organization, for that matter. I don't see how the quote, (which was a convenient block containing all the grants and contributors) makes my point irrelevant or suspect, really.

In fact, I can't see how noting the influences of foundations or corporations would be anything other than what I proposed. Media and politics are now heavily influenced by special interests, particularly those in the Status Quo who are pushing and preserving, (I think of that as rather well served by the more obnoxious and visible aspect of the Right) their agendas. I think that is also happening on a more subtle level and that is open to debate.

I guess I did not make it clear enough, originally, that a block of text would bring-on suspicion and paranoia. I often speak-up about corporatism and the psychological and social impact of propaganda and influence by the military-industrial-corporate state.

So, forgive me if I am scratching my head on the call-out when I present no Right-wing, (or reactionary, IMHO) rhetoric or support at all. It is a matter of observation and insight.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Actually, this is where Horowitz's dishonesty comes in.

The block quote contains ONLY information that some corporations and foundations self-reported. The entire NAACP donor database IS NOT available (privacy issues).

Horowitz does not report the entire NAACP budget nor does he report what percentage the foundation and corporate money comprises of the entire NAACP budget.

For all you know, the corporate and foundation donations could make up a mere 1% of the entire NAACP budget.

So, yes. Parroting incomplete information from a right-wing website is indeed, presenting right-wing rhetoric.

[Newest Reality]

17. Assuming that my point is being made from that

right-wing website's perspective and rhetoric is your error.

You are also being too specific here, (as I am implying a point about all Foundations and NGO's and their current roles) and making false assertions. My point is centered around the co-opting of movements and organizations, (as is done globally as well as locally) in an attempt to contain, corral, divert, influence and direct them from anything that might be a threat to the established system.

You can remain hung-up on right-wing ideology, (which is rather blatant and obvious) but at least consider that my point was to inspire more investigation into the matter from an apolitical perspective, i.e., financial. There are resources on this, but I wasn't intending a thesis in my post, nor offering proofs.

I take exception to your insinuation that I am parroting and will leave it at that.

[county worker]

19. You cover your ass well. Why you think any thing you say will have an impact on the posters of this

site is a mystery to me. We support the NAACP mostly.

[BR_Parkway]

4. Now why do I think that's gonna really freak out some of the Teabaggers?

As much as they already freaked out over a minority in the White House, a who big group marching on DC will have some of them shitting in their pants.

[FarLeftFist]

7. Perfect, right before the election.

[Bluebear]

8. Right on, it is perfect. Maybe people will vote for progressives.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Kick.

[LiberalEsto]

15. Another Poor Peoples' March

good idea

[county worker]

18. I am planning on going to the march.

[defendandprotect]

20. K&R --- and will try to remember to contribute . . .

[Lost4words]

21. dupe

[Lost4words]

22. I am doing all I can to get there!