Folk Alliance vs. NAACP

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 07:37 PM

I'm pretty certain that American case law means that public boycotts count as an exercise of the rights covered by Freedom of Speech.

And anyone who signs any contract that doesn't include a right to cancel it - maybe with appropriate penalties - is a raving maniac. Of course there probably are a lot of them about in responsible positions, but they are still raving maniacs.

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 07:56 PM

Dunno' why this radical thing is bothering me, but................

Yes, Mr. Hahn, perhaps we are more civilized, but we got there through action....not inaction. The people at the far ends of the political spectrum may be completely nuts and way off base to you, barbaric even, but without that skewer, you ain't got a kabob. Certainly the reasonable leftists will eventually be prompted into action as are the rightists, but the catalyst for the action comes from the far ends and not the center.

As I said before, I think the FA as a politcal organization is dead....it wasn't huge to begin with. The statement that could and should be made at this time is to the effect that if the NAACP situation is not resolved the FA will not meet there. Solidarity.........mostly lost.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 08:08 PM

FA is a business. No doubt.

I'd think there is some doubt. I looked up the large dictionary I keep handy, and the relevant definitions said: "a Commercial transations, trade, finance etc conytrasted with one of the learned or liberal professions or with the public services...b particular commercial enterprise"

Does an organisation that is defined as non-profit making, and which is commited to furthering goals which are not primarily commercial fall into those definitions? Well, maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. Hence "no doubt" is going a bit too far.

Churches, political parties, trades unions, campaigning groups are they all businesses just because they have to try to avoid making an actual loss if they can?

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: Noreen
Date: 15 Aug 01 - 08:55 PM

Pardon me for interrupting, but this thread is rather long for ease of loading. I've started a continuation thread: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP Part 2 (click here)

Subject: RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 05:13 PM

" Frequently Asked Questions: OAH and the Adam's Mark Hotels Updated 7 March 2000, 10:40 EST

5) Aren't the charges against Adam's Mark unproven allegations at this point?

Since 1991, the Adam's Mark chain has been sued at least seven times over charges of racial discrimination, including the two most recent lawsuits filed by the NAACP and the U.S. Department of Justice."

The question that I have is why didn't the FA research this? My suspicion is that they weren't interested. If this is the case, it doesn't speak well for the organization.

If it was short-sighted on their part and it is a costly mistake, the organization might still be in tact because there would be groundswell support for it if if did not cross the NAACP picket line.

I'm reminded of the "Hootenanny" TV show which refused Pete Seeger, the man who invented the word "hootenanny" as a folksing.

If I were a black entertainer I would be reluctant to appear at the FA conference in this hotel chain. As it is, I would personally not go there.

The NAACP is not a radical knee-jerk organization. It has a venerable history and has been accused of being conservative at times. This boycott is not a so-called "politically correct" issue. Even though the boycott was lifted from time to time, it is incumbent on the FA to have researched this hotel chain as to it's policies on racial discrimination.

It's too late for them to cry out "who knew?" They should have.

My advice to the FA. Cut your losses, regroup as an organization of integrity that honors African-Americans and try again. This time, update that mission statement.

Frank