Talk:National Association for the Advancement of White People

NAAWP.ORG
Whatever happened to the main NAAWP website that was located at NAAWP.ORG ? The main website for that organization, which was fairly extensive a few years ago, is now gone; is the main orgainization gone? I first learned of this organization after the Cincinati, Ohio riots and just observed as someone interested in society and social learning (not prejudice or racism motivated- I also had the NAACP website in my favorites at the same time). There still is an active, but far less extensive than the original, website for the Florida chapter: http://naawpflch.org/noframes/index.html but I am wondering if the main organization has disappeared and if so what is/was the cause (law, funding, shift in racial harmony (LOL), incorporation with another group, what?). I'm curious to know as someone who works and has had studies in Sociology. I don't intend to join either the NAAWP nor NAACP as they are both, in my humble oppinion, contradictory to what America should be- the great melting pot.

Er
Er wasn't this founded by David Duke the erstwhile Ku Klux Klan leader? If so I find this article somewhat disingenuous. Sjc 10:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * A bit late on the response, but you're right. The introduction and "origins" section seem to contradict each other--for reference, though, I've found |this article regarding Bowles and |several |mentions of |Duke's involvement.  My best guess would be that there were two organizations by that name, but I can't find out how or why the changeover happened. jonny-mt 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template which says "This organization appears to contradict itself?"--75.25.5.1 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The organization is based on an ideology focusing on on race rather than nationality. Based on that it seems a bit odd to just describe them as being mere nationalists.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that the only reason it's "contradictory?" If so, I think it needs some serious rewording.

Ronald Edmiston LTEs
The long-defunct NAAWP of Hawaii chapter has fallen into obscurity, making it difficult to document. However, at this time at least two of Edmiston's letters to the editor are still on the Web. I am documenting them here, in case they disappear in the future.

From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 18, 1999: Hate-crime laws should apply to all

The hate-crime laws introduced by the state Senate Judiciary Committee are biased against Christians, conservatives and anyone with moral values, which is typical of Hawaii's liberal politicians.

The laws proposed are mainly directed toward helping homosexuals. White victims of hate crimes like Jay Waller, Daniel Nadler and Dana Ireland will not be included in this liberal interpretation of reality.

Let the hate-crimes laws apply to all races and tourists. Otherwise, they will be meaningless and racist.

Ronald Edmiston Hawaii Director National Association for the Advancement of White People

From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 8, 2000: Sovereignty may scare off tourists

As a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I find myself supporting Hawaiian sovereignty. But there may be a serious drawback. Many people on the mainland may feel angry about paying out billions of dollars to support Hawaiian programs, thus resulting in lost tourism dollars. This could represent perhaps billions more than would be paid to the Hawaiian people.

Ronald Edmiston

These letters are now cited in the article via links. -- IslandGyrl 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Different founding history or earlier use of name?
This source, Complicated Matters: The Complex Opposition to Brown v. Board of Education (PDF file) by Martin M. Zacharia, Northwestern University, says on pp. 7-8: Although most localities in the border states complied with desegregation, Milford, Delaware, proved to be an outstanding exception. Bryant Bowles, founder of the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People), fueled whites’ irrational fears of token desegregation. After calling parents and students to boycott Milford High School for its desegregation plans, only one third of the students came to school that Monday. The turnout may have made the boycott “successful,” but it did not reflect the gamut of attitudes white parents had. While some parents genuinely supported the boycott, others boycotted in fear of the potential violence that could occur at Milford. Bowles had in fact threatened local businesses in favor of integration and had supporters burn crosses. As his influence spread, litigation against segregation continued. But the first black students were not admitted to Milford until 1962. Such strong opposition to integration, largely influenced by demagogues like Bowles who exploited racial fears, proved to be rare in border states, but nonetheless present. which would seem to indicate a much earlier use of the NAAWP name unrelated to David Duke. -- IslandGyrl 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "National Association for the Advancement of White People" seems like a fairly obvious parody name of the NAACP, and it's not unlikely that the idea could have occurred to different people at different times.  In addition in Brrian Bowles in Milford, Delaware in 1954, a New York Times search turns up a group founded in 1963 by one William F. Miller of Cincinnati, Ohio, that apparently also established ephemeral chapters in several other Midwest cities.--Pharos 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacking in sources
Where was the information for this article obtained? The date it was founded? Duke being the founder? Where it's headquartered? Their views? Did all this information come from their website (which I've never seen, since the link previously used in this article is dead)?

And if the website did claim that NAAWP stands for "the National Association for the Advancement of Working People", why isn't that the title of the article? i.e.


 * The National Association for the Advancement of Working People, originally called, and perhaps more widely known as the National Association for the Advancement of White People

...and so forth.

Also, the section of the David Duke article which mentions the NAAWP (David_Duke) references an article which currently redirects to the main page of the site. However, I found this, which makes reference to the same article.

The problem is, the Wikipedia article states that Duke was planning "his International NAAWP Conference", while the article refers to "the International European American Unity and Leadership Conference". Perhaps this is related to Duke's European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization? Perhaps the NAAWP and this other organization are the same thing? -68.114.155.3 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Category?
I think you mentioned this a little bit in the article, but why is it that this is categorized as "white supremacy", but no one would ever think of categorizing the NAACP as black supremacy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.18.178 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * My guess would be that it is because one shoe fits and the other doesn't. If David Duke wakes up tomorrow morning and decides to create an organization with a name similar to the PTA, should wikipedia recatigorize the PTA, also? --Ramsey2006 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Both organizations NAAWP and NAACP have the same views they just involve different races. 184.96.247.138 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's true. If both have similar views, but applying to different ethnic groups, then it would be ridiculous to categorize them differently. Mr. Kent (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Before Bowles and after Duke
The name was used before Bowles as a subtitle of the "Mason-Dixie Society", and after Duke's organisation languished Reno Wolfe picked it up, see for instance. I don't have time for this right now. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another ref (1999) here says that the Wolfe NAAWP was actually the result of a split in the Duke NAAWP following a 1997 ABC "Prime Time Live" report. Meters (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

White Nationalist

 * There is nothing in the body to support the claim in the intro that the NAAWP was a white nationalist organization. I believe it should be characterized ad an organization that advocated for the non-prejudicial treatment of white people, similar to the purpose of the NAACP. 108.38.29.47 (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is This Organization "Racist"?
I notice the absence of the word "racist" in this article, which leads me to believe that the NAAWP might be a legitimate, non-racist organization. Is this organization racist? If so, shouldn't there be some mention of this?2605:6000:6947:AB00:24FA:69AE:48F6:DD23 (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Proposal by now-blocked sock puppet. Only comment opposes proposal, citing policy. Station1 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

National Association for the Advancement of White People → NAAWP – per WP:CONCISE title, which looks similar to NAACP. The Houndsworth (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. Nobody knows what NAAWP means. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as for WP:TLDR in shorter titles, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, is shorten to NAAWP. --The Houndsworth (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Add strike to comments made by banned or blocked SOCK editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page revision
Hey everyone! I've done a massive makeover of this page and included the most up to date and accurate information. I would really appreciate any feedback, especially from previous editors. Hopefully this page is now a more relevant resource about the NAAWP :) I'm only a newbie at Wikipedia and this is the first page I've created, so any comments or discussions or critiques are more than welcome! Tofta22 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

NAAWP 1953-1955 should be separated out
The 1953 organization and the 1979 organization are completely separate. Aside from the similarity in name and belief, there is nothing connecting the two; they should be placed in two separate articles.

The 1953 organization is only mentioned in the introduction and in the History section. The majority of this article focuses on the organization founded in 1979. I suggest that this article discuss only the 1979 organization, and that the 1953 organization be pushed into a new article: National Association for the Advancement of White People (1953–1955).

Ancophosep (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar Conventions
Because this article focuses on people, places, events, and groups almost entirely in the United States, I would suggest that the article try to follow American spelling and grammar conventions. ("organization", "colored", quotation use, collective noun use, etc...)

Ancophosep (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Really good advice - will go about fixing this. I'm too used to British English! Tofta22 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I've gone ahead and boldly replaced the lead paragraph. It is now about the modern organization only. That the NAAWP doesn't consider itself racist isn't in any way remarkable. I've replaced "values regarding the positioning of white people in society" with "racist hate group", etc.

There appear to be few reliable secondary sources, perhaps because the organization is so openly racist. Perhaps the whole article ought to be merged into David Duke?

IpseCustos (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias in Differences
So, the NAAWP is full of white supremacists, but the NAACP is a "civil rights" group? Please elaborate why this isn't bias. Thanks. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Maintaining one's own group's dominance over other groups is not generally considered a civil right. Largoplazo (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs
There is an issue with the statement (in bold)...

"The NAAWP is a fundamentally Christian organization which strongly opposes homosexuality and the rise of feminism. The collapse of the patriarchal family model is another concern, with a male-centered nuclear household seen as the preferred model for families. "

While they may consider themselves a fundamentally Christian organization, it is not appropriate to state this in Wikivoice without evidence or RS. As far as I can tell their legal status is not that of a religious organization.

I am changing it to...

"The NAAWP consider themselves a fundamentally Christian organization which strongly opposes homosexuality and the rise of feminism. The collapse of the patriarchal family model is another concern, with a male-centered nuclear household seen as the preferred model for families. "

This will fit better with the way the rest of this section is written, ie..."They believe that..." "They portray themselves as...." "Members believe they are..." "Further, they hold the opinion that..."

According to the article it is not a "fundamentally Christian organization", it is technically a "fundamentally White Supremacist" organization, or as they refer to themselves as a "not for profit, non-violent, civil rights educational organization". Being a non-profit does not automatically make something a Christian organization. If there is RS that contradicts this, please share and quote the exact passage and page # please. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that among the many sources that point out how many self-styled "Christian" movements use what many Christians consider to be decidedly un-Christian rhetoric and tactics in pursuing their goals, enough of them may meet WP:RS that WP:WEIGHT will be on your side. Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)