In the May 20, 2023 NAACP press statement NAACP Issues Travel Advisory in Florida the actual text of the travel advisory can be found, titled "NAACP Travel Advisory for the State of Florida".

To me a reading of the actual advisory seems to show that it more warns of recent politics, and day-to-day risks that some Florida residents might experience rather than anything specifically related to travel there.

In the traditional sense for example, travelers are not putting their children in school.

In other words, to me it seems to say "Think twice about moving to Florida, and if you already did, think about taking some political action."

So I'd like to ask two questions:

  1. Is the NAACP Florida travel advisory really about traveling to/in Florida, or about moving to/living there?
  2. How often to they issue political travel advisories? I have a hunch there were real advisories about the safety of travelers in the past, but recently, besides this one, have there been many NAACP travel advisories?
  • 1
    The only concern cited is The travel advisory comes in direct response to Governor Ron DeSantis' aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools. Without trying to read minds, that doesn't that much like travel concerns, more like a - wholly justified from their PoV - desire to oppose DeSantis. Commented May 24, 2023 at 16:09
  • 1
    The Green Book is of related historical interest. Commented May 24, 2023 at 22:27
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Yes thanks for the Green Book reference! As far as the concern cited: perhaps it's better to say that it's to oppose "aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida schools" no matter where they come from? The reason these things have traction is that there is some widespread appeal for them.
    – uhoh
    Commented May 25, 2023 at 0:00

2 Answers 2


According to USA Today the first ever travel advisory issued by the NAACP came in August of 2017 when the organization issued a travel advisory for the State of Missouri. The second came two months later in October and was issued in relation to American Airlines. I was not able to find references to any other travel advisories, so that would make this the 3rd cumulative advisory since it's formation in 1909. In 1999 the NAACP issued an actual boycott of the State of South Carolina for the state's insistence on flying the Confederate Battle Flag above the state capitol. The state relented in 2015 after a mass shooting claimed the lives of 9 black parishoners and injured 1 at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and the flag was removed from the capitol permanently. The NAACP ended its boycott of the state as a result.

You can read the full text of the advisory on the organization's website here. The language used only indicates they refer specifically to travel, but it also advises that if you do live there that you should join in their advocacy. Whether there's a subtext also counseling against relocating there more permanently is a bit more subjective. Moving is of course a more permanent situation than just traveling somewhere, and depends on much more personal factors than where one decides to spend their vacation money. The previous advisory targeting the State of Missouri was done under the same leadership and they stated that it was not to be interpreted as a "boycott" which is how I would read an advisory against moving to or living in a specific place. Other people do seem to be interpreting this latest advisory as a boycott, but I have not seen that language used from the organization itself.

  • 5
    The "boycotts" against states by the NAACP were described at the time as economic boycotts. The intent was to persuade conventions, artists, and other large scale gatherings from being held in the state in an effort to negatively affect economic activity and not necessarily to persuade people from moving there or from continuing to live there.
    – user5155
    Commented May 23, 2023 at 3:08

It's not a literal travel advisory like you'd see for traveling to Ukraine or Somalia or Afghanistan. Rather, it's a statement of opposition by the NAACP against the state of Florida. On a shallow level they’re asking members to not support the economy of Florida by traveling there, on a deeper level it’s a generic statement of opposition to the policies of Ron DeSantis. It's kind of similar to the US travel advisories against visiting Russia - in practice the risks of visiting Moscow haven't changed since February 2022, however the US tries to use everything in their arsenal to try and hurt the Russian economy.

Don't try to find meaning where there is none. It's an empty press release by a toothless organization that's of little importance these days. This is a short answer but unfortunately that's all there is to say about this so-called "travel advisory".

  • 2
    At least it's thematically appropriate. The term "woke" has long ties to African-American struggles in the U.S. and Florida's governor loves to drone on about "Stop Woke", "Anti-Woke", and "Florida is the state where woke goes to die". Even the recent addition of the LGBTQ+ community to the "woke" ideology doesn't change things. The NAACP has long been in support of the plight of the LGBTQ+ community as well.
    – CitizenRon
    Commented May 23, 2023 at 21:00
  • 8
    Downvoted for the weasel word "virtue signalling" which is exclusively used to suggest that the position is completely insincere. The odds of the NAACP being insincere in their opposition to DeSantis are vanishingly small.
    – barbecue
    Commented May 24, 2023 at 2:33
  • 4
    @JonathanReez Can you give a definition of "virtue-signaling" that includes the NAACP's statement, but excludes your comment? Is any criticism of an entity's conduct "virtue signaling"? "Don't try to find meaning where there is none." Surely it conveys the meaning of "We strongly object to De Santis' actions"? Are you seriously denying that? Commented May 24, 2023 at 2:45
  • 3
    @JonathanReez By the way, I don't think calling out a travel advisory for Russia is the best counter-example, given that it could be argued that said travel advisory should have been in effect the entire time, due to Russia's propensity to take hostages.
    – Onyz
    Commented May 24, 2023 at 13:13
  • 4
    @NuclearHoagie an earnest travel advisory should only be issued if there are statistically significant risks to travelers as compared to the baseline of staying in their own state/country. No such risks have been directly identified by the NAACP so in practice they’re misusing the term “travel advisory”. Calling for a boycott would’ve been much more sincere. Commented May 24, 2023 at 16:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .