A Hundred Years Later: Our Link to the NAACP

The U.S. Senate's passage of a resolution apologizing for slavery and of course the 100th anniversary of the founding of the NAACP give me reason to focus on African-American history. The fact we have an African-American president in 2009 and the Senate passed a resolution saying, "Sorry about that slavery thing...." can't be unconnected. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created in 1909 and driven by the desire for the immediate achievement of African-American political, economic, and social rights. Of course, as the best known, and in some circles, most respected civil rights organization in the United States, this anniversary should and is important. Perhaps it is more important in 2009 because some observers are asking themselves, "Is the NAACP still needed?" The question is misguided, but worth thinking about. The case for the end of the NAACP is obvious. There is a African-American president, one elected by the majority of U.S. citizens. If this is possible, we must have "solved" our race problems. These comments have some merit. Indeed, if we could talk to the group that founded the NAACP in 1909, I think some of them would feel the NAACP had accomplished much of what it wanted to achieve. I know, bold words, but given that one founding member of the NAACP was Hamilton Holt, we can judge from his writing and comments what his hopes were in terms of race relations. Holt's work as editor of the Independent, a liberal weekly prior to becoming college president made it clear he believed that race should not be used as barrier to opportunity. His support for racial equality in the pages of the Independent continued as college president. His decision to give Mary McLeod Bethune an honorary degree in 1949 challenged southern racism. Yet, Holt's thinking about race did not and could not take into account structural barriers left behind from Jim Crow segregation. While we no longer have "separate but equal" as a standard, we have a legacy of race base thinking that diminishes all Americans.

The hope that race no longer plays a role in defining the lives of American citizens is worthwhile goal. Reaching a moment in time where race is neutral factor in people's live will mean that we have let go prejudices and beliefs that marginalize people of color. The problem is that race continues to define lives of many Americans in ways that have been documented by cold hard statics on hiring, wealth creation, and access to basic service and my random event like the arrest of well known black Harvard professor like Henry Louis Gates. The belief that African-American spend too much time speaking about race, a comment that emerged several time over the last few weeks. It is an easy comment for white commentators. The reality, often ignored by conservative critics, is that African-American must think about race because they face the negative effects from racism, while White people never need to think about the positive effect that come from whiteness.

The goal of a post-racial society, where racial identity doesn't effect perception or opportunity is far from a reality. If that is the case, a civil right organization like the NAACP still has some role in society. Whether or not the NAACP current agenda is the right one is a better question to ask. Fighting the battles that you fought a hundred years ago is not going to win the war. Indeed, if we consider the problem facing African-Americans: access to education, chronic unemployment, the effect of drugs(crime related to drugs)and chronic health concerns. We see that a more complex and nuisance approach to understanding how race affects African-American life is needed. Case in point, the Henry Louis Gate incident. Some people will say the policeman was racist. Indeed, the police in Cambridge have a history of defending themselves against charges of racial profiling. Gates' reaction will also be put on trial. Did he overreact to the police answering a call about a possible crime? For my part, I want someone to interview the "neighbor" who forgot she lived next door to one of the most famous African-American intellectuals alive today!?!?!


There is no question race played a part in the incident, but not in ways that are cut and dry. No doubt the officer, face with a possible crime, needed to be sure of Gates' identity. As an expert on racial profiling he will never admit color might has effected his actions. Nor will observers agree that Gates had a right to demand the officer badge number and name (something he did have the right to ask) For Gates, the implication that his civil rights were being violated by a police officer and his determination to assert his rights (something African-American have not been able to do for much of the country's history) added to a tense situation. Would a white guy have gotten angry about this incident? The answer is probably yes. Would the white guy have been arrested? The answer to that is probably no. This incident only matters because it was a white officer and black man. Two white guys or two black guys would not have been a media moment. Indeed, the media moment represents the reality of race. White observers feel frustrated that they have elected an African-American president and yet, they are still being called racist. African-Americans are frustrated that the real problems associated with race has never been acknowledged or dealt with in a systematic way. The NAACP will point to the problem of racial profiling and talk about the problem of minorities facing undue attention from the police. Yet, the dialogue about race, power, and opportunity in the United States remains just over the horizon. The reality of an African-American president make this dialogue more likely, but other pressing national problems stand in the way. In the meantime, I think we can expect a low-level simmer on the race question as the United States struggles to find a balance between silence and truth about the importance of race in the American experience.

July 16, 1969

The anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon is this month. While there is some question about the future of the current space program. There is something to be learned from taking a moment to remember how much was accomplished with the Apollo Space Program. Twelve men walked on the moon beginning in 1969. The technical problems associated with getting to the moon are almost forgotten today. The fact of the matter is the smartphones we used everyday have more computing power than the computer used in the space program. While that seems amazing, it only represents the tip of the iceberg when we consider also every technical detail involving going to the moon was conceived and quasi-perfected between May 25, 1961 when President John F. Kennedy gave his memorable speech in front of Congress and July 1969 when the landing actually took place. Kennedy's proclamation had everything to do with the politics of the Cold War. Indeed, without the specter of the U.S.S.R reaching the moon first--its unlikely we would have committed the money to the space program. Critics then, and critics today, are quick to point out more hard science can be done with unmanned vehicles and the cost associated with keeping a person alive in space make manned flight a waste. Indeed, the dangers associated with space flight are well known. In the Apollo Program the death of the Apollo 1 crew: Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee marked the first example of the danger when they died testing Apollo systems. In recent times, the Challenger explosion and the loss of the Columbia have reminds Americans space exploration is risky. These dangers however, are not the real barrier to exploring space. Today, the cost question represents the most powerful challenge to space exploration. However, historically the question is not new. Even as men walked on the moon, protest over Vietnam, urban race riots, and rising social tension cause many people to question the wisdom of spending money on the space program. Today, in the midst of a massive economic downturn, people are once again asking why spend money on a space program? NASA to it credit, has played the politics of budgets as well as any government body, but they have always been fighting a loosing battle. Nixon began cutting the space program when he came into office and every president since Nixon has had questions about spending money on NASA's budget. Indeed, there are always plenty of people worried about the our national debt and those people look at the manned space program and say cut it. Given the challenges, plenty of people, especially observers in Florida are looking beyond the government to help keep the dream of exploring space alive. The idea of a commercial space program to fill the gap is interesting. Whether or not private corporations going into space grows into the business advocate hope for is a question. Another key question is whether or not this commercial space business will be in Florida. Florida is linked to the space program and because of that connection we hear more about funding problem and economic impact of space program than most communities. In case you haven't notice, fears about the end of the shuttle program and what will happen while the Orion capsule is made ready to fly are in the news regularly. One things that give me hope is that while politicians aren't traditionally concerned about long term science issues (hard to get elected saying this will pay off in 20 years) they are concerned about appearance and they are reactionary. Given those facts, the specter of the rise of China as a space-faring nation might translate into continued health for NASA. The trick will be to avoid the militarization of space, something that we have been struggling with since the 1950s. The case for a manned space program can be made, but it needs to be made at every level. We don't hear a lot about space in school and unless there is trouble, you don't hear about it in the news. NASA's efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of space are pretty weak. It's a shame because NASA is the place where breakthrough in solar power, recycling, environmental engineering, and material science can happen the fastest. Just look at the Apollo program, the innovations created there are still affecting our lives today. President Obama's desire to create a new green economy works in favor of the space program and the fact the infrastructure associated with NASA is already up and running make it hard to say the program will disappear. Still, looking back at the Apollo moon landing remind us to consider what a U.S. space program can accomplish with big goals that push our imagination.