Shirley Sherrod is blaming the NAACP for her resignation/firing, and she is right to:
Asked about the NAACP’s actions during an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Sherrod said the only reason the video surfaced was in response to an NAACP resolution accusing the tea party of using “racist” tactics. “They got into a fight with the tea party, and all of this came out as a result of that,” Sherrod said.
I said something very similar in the comment #81 section of this post:
It is worth noting that the impetus for Breitbart’s actions was [this] kind of crap, and the NAACP’s unnecessary move to play an extremely weak race card by making a big show of condemning “racist elements in the Tea Parties.” So, this mess was begun on a movement begun left-to-right. To my mind that doesn’t justify anything, but it’s worth remembering how this began. There is little glory here, for anyone.
The NAACP has pulled its initial statement on the Sherrod tape.
The wife of the farmer Sherrod referenced in her story speaks glowingly of Sherrod:
But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a “friend for life,” said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.
“Her husband told her, ‘You’re spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,’ ” Spooner told the AJC. “She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out.”
Spooner called Sherrod Tuesday morning. “She’s very sad about it,” Spooner said. “She told me she was so glad we talked. I just can’t believe this is happening to her.”
In my post yesterday, I was pretty clear that the Breitbart tape wasn’t sitting well with me. Ms. Sherrod–still not a great speaker–clearly was on her way to relate a tale that indicted her own understanding, when that tape ended.
You know what’s not singing to me, now? The argument that “the tape wasn’t about nailing Sherrod, it was about demonstrating the racism of the NAACP audience; it was a response to their wicked attempt to paint the Tea Party as racist.”
As I said yesterday, there was certainly a stones/glass houses note to it all, but Shirley Sherrod had a story to tell, and as far as I’m concerned, that story needed telling in full – that was the only way to be fair to Sherrod. After it was told, then, if you wanted to make the point about the audience’s reaction to her own tale–which is apparently one that indicts her own racist past–you could do that. Otherwise, all you’ve done is destroyed Sherrod in the same way that Trent Lott was ruined: by taking her remarks out of context.
Context matters. If the right, quite correctly, doesn’t like to see pols on their side tarnished with this despicable label sans context, they they can’t be happy to see what happened to Sherrod.
Likewise, I have zero patience for these visitors from the left who have come to this site like smug Ted Baxters, condescendingly patting me on the head for, apparently, meeting with their highbrow approval and then demanding that I “further denounce” Breitbart. When I ask them if they, in turn, will “denounce and disavow” nonsense like this and this from the left, why they morph into an amalgam of Claude Reins and Sgt. Schultz: they are shocked, shocked! They knew nothing, nothing of those leftist fabrications and manipulations!
Then they go away…
This whole sordid mess of a story–which is clearly not over–may tell us that it is past time for people of good will to stop tolerating politically-expedient charges of racism, regardless of whether they originate from genuinely from overzealous, malicious bloggers or from Congressmen who are confident that any charge they make will be deemed insta-credible, or from journalists who ignore real racism while trying to ignite the charge elsewhere, for the advancement of their own partisan agendas, or from the rightly marginalized, fringe-living, stupid people who every sensible person condemns.
The NAACP’s maneuver last week was an attempt at cynical manipulation, a lazy card they thought they could play, because it’s always taken the pot, before. They ticked off Breitbart, who upped the ante, but appears to have done so recklessly.
Everyone’s credibility is now strained, and perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps the left should finally leave behind the smug instinct to sniff, “racism, straight up” over sincere disagreements on policy. If they can manage that, then perhaps the right can stop feeling so defensive.
There is absolutely nothing simple about the matter of race in America; there is a ways to go before content of character will finally overcome color of skin. But I am not sure if further progress toward a truly color-blind society can be made until the manufactured cry of “raaaaacism”–by people who know that their are merely fanning flames or manipulating movements–has finally been rejected by both the right and the left. Race-baiters must be made to understand that their cheap tactic will no longer bear weight among fair-minded people, who are horrified by genuine racism but tired of its weaponized unreasonable facsimile.
In a nation that has come far enough to see African-Americans hold its highest offices, and wield enormous power–power given to them by people of all races and backgrounds, who can and will take it back at their own pleasure–the overplayed charge of “racism” among the chatterers is not only toxic, it is self-revelatory: it betrays their own tawdry cynicism, and their own racial fixations.
Breaking: The White House throws itself under the bus
NAACP says it was snookered by Breitbart and Fox. They said they have “reviewed the tape.” Well, good. Why didn’t they do that, first thing? And when can we see it?
UPDATE I:
NAACP: Says this is this is the full video:
Drew M Tweets: Most of it is a beautiful love letter to America and what it could be. I agree.
But towards the end she started talking about the “racist” Tea Party and insinuated they were using the healthcare debate as a ‘code’ of sorts to indicate their racism against BO. These were her worst comments, IMO, bc apparently she believes just as Ben Jealous and the rest of the NAACP does that the Tea Party is a “racist organization.”Video would have been great had she not gone there.
Agree with that, too. But I don’t blame Sherrod for going along with the group-think of the NAACP. It’s almost the human condition for people to just get into the habit of following along, don’t you think? It’s a habit of thought people get into.
Its politics aside, her full speech is heartfelt and moving. It’s the tale of someone overcoming hatred and rancor when she had every reason not to. Her saga over the last couple of days is a lesson in how the culture of offense often works in contemporary America—chewing people up and spitting them out before they even have a chance to defend themselves. Of course she should get her job back, although the Department of Agriculture is bizarrely standing by her firing so far.
Agree with that, too. This lady should be reinstated at her job.
For now, we know that the entire story is moving that this woman learned to overcome her own prejudices. She acknowledged that black Americans can and do harbor prejudices against their Caucasian fellows. While we may question Ms. Sherrod’s class consciousness, we can appreciate her willingness to acknowledge the hatred that was once in her own heart. And appreciate her willingness to gain compassion for individuals she once scorned.
UPDATE: Sherrod should write a book And Breitbart should apologize, doublequick.
Related:
Dalrymple: Is the Tea Party Racist
Biden: Not a racist movement
Lots and lots of opinion and stories bouncing around about this – I’m linking many of these w/o reading, so don’t hold me accountable for any of it:
Hot Air
Sister Toldjah
Not so Fast…
Powerline
Glenn Beck (we’re in rare agreement)
Ed Driscoll
Da Tech Guy
Roger L. Simon
Jules Crittenden
Doug Ross
Daily Caller
PubSecrets
Ironic Surrealism
Perhaps, Bender, this hypothetical farmer could met & become good pals with David Jungerman?
I thought only the bad old MSM did things like this. Breitbart fights media malfeasance, dishonesty and bias by going even farther then they do.
“Agree with that, too. But I don’t blame Sherrod for going along with the group-think of the NAACP. It’s almost the human condition for people to just get into the habit of following along, don’t you think? It’s a habit of thought people get into.”
Really? Who would you blame? Those evil tea bagger racists? We are all responsible for our own ideas, stated or only thought. We have a responsibilty to ourselves and the world to use logic and reason to establish a set of values that does not impose upon or diminish the right of others to live their lives to their own best abilities.
That said, I would point out that Sherrod should not have been fired for this speech. She should have been fired 24 years ago for her reprehensible behavior and not been allowed to become a lifetime bureaucrat who felt entitled to destroy the lives of folks who were “different”. If she had been treated appropriately then, we would not have had this issue come up now.
Now. Who wants to talk about whether or not private businessmen and women (farmers) have a right to line up at the Government trough just because they don’t know how to operate a business?
[Do you really think that only members of the NAACP are susceptible to group thing? We're ALL susceptible to it. Which is what this sorry episode is proving. -admin]
Admins response to Jeffer’s son Ian
[Do you really think that only members of the NAACP are susceptible to group thing? We're ALL susceptible to it. Which is what this sorry episode is proving. -admin]
I’m not sure who told you to say that. Heh.
You have obviously missed my point. Regardless of the tendency to follow a group, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to think for ourselves and to reject reprehensible and destructive beliefs and values in ourselves or others. Values that would diminish ourselves and others. It is wrong headed and destructive to judge people based on the color of their skin. Regardless of the color of your own. Regardless of how those around you feel. There exist perfectly good reasons to not like certain people. Race is not one of them.
The tea party groups are not racist groups. They formed in response to an overreaching over large Government expansion. There may indeed be racists who hold small government values. They might attend tea party rallies. They just do not represent the ideals of the tea party groups. Despite what those on the far left would like you to believe.
[See, I'm not a Tea Partier--in truth I am not much a joiner, I'm more of an observer--but I do recognize that they are not a racist bunch; I know too many good people involved with tea parties to believe that. I do think there has been an effort by some to exploit the fringe elements to paint them as such. But I also know that people are susceptible to slogans and bumpersticks and soundbites (which is why they never seem to go out of style), and after a while, a person can just get so used to agreeing with 90% of what an organization says--any organization--that they stop considering separate issues, and just identify with the overall. I think that's what Sherrod did; I think it's what most of us do, at some point or another; early on in my walk from left to right, I did it a little, myself. So, what am I going to do, blame her for being human? No. I'm going to accept that this is what people do, sometimes, and have a little mercy, fer pete's sake!
-admin]
In response to Doc at #108 :
If you want to compare racist comments in left and right wing blogs , like say Free Republic and Daily Kos , then by all means do so. You will lose that argument by a million miles.
In response to #80:
First off does it matter what Briebart was responding to , if he smeared an innocent woman? No it does not. That is an absurd and lame excuse,
Secondly , the NAACPs request for the Tea Party to repudiate racists was not unfounded , as the racist letter by Mark Williams proved.
Thank you admin for engaging me. I do see where you are coming from. I appreciate that you are by nature a forgiving person. I am not trying to condemn Sherrod. Just her behavior. If a groups (NAACP) possibly racist beliefs are counter to your own and make you uncomfortable, you should leave that group. If you haven’t left you might not be that uncomfortable with them.
Palmtree, I was simply trying to point out the flaw in group condemnation based on blog comments. I’ve seen too many liberal trolls posing as “conservative racists” making absurd comments on conservative blogs to credit comment content with much validity.
By the way, I’m not so sure I would lose a contest over whether liberals or conservatives were nastier. You should read some of Michelle Malkin’s mail when she shares it. I have never seen such racist venom from any conservative.
“Racial consciousness” is the new term for racial bigotry when practised by blacks and liberals.
In their minds a new term makes racism acceptable when practised by politically correct groups.
Sarah Kuvasz: “Racial consciousness” is the new term for racial bigotry when practised by blacks and liberals.
It’s only natural for people who suffer racial discrimination to be racially conscious. That’s why it’s called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. People learn racial consciousness as children, from the first time they hear a racial slur. The truncated video was a case of obvious race-baiting, and Sherrod was its immediate victim.
This can lead to bias, of course, even hatred. But even though Sherrod suffered racial animosity, she overcame this in order to break down some of the barriers between people. And this is the story she conveyed, a story of Redemption.
“God helped me see that its not just about black people, it’s about poor people.”
Excusing racial bigotry by calling it racial consciousness doesn’t mean its not racism. It is. It doesn’t matter what you call it. The actions are what are important.
And, Ms. Sherrod admitted she didn’t originally help the guy because he was white. That’s racism, no matter what you call it.
Sarah Kuvasz: Excusing racial bigotry by calling it racial consciousness doesn’t mean its not racism. It is. It doesn’t matter what you call it.
Seriously, if a little girl gets called a racially derogatory name at school and learns the hard way that she is a member of a minority, she becomes racially conscious. Whether she becomes racist is another matter that depends on how she learns to deal with that prejudice. Again, that’s why it’s called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Sarah Kuvasz: The actions are what are important.
She fought against her bias, born of her own experiences, and overcame them. She helped the family, doing far more than the vast majority of people would. Yes, actions are what are important.
Everybody I’ve heard use the term racial consciousness does it to camoflouge racist activities performed by a preferred racist group, like the NAACP. One of the most serious racist groups extant. Similar to the KKK. Exact same attitudes, one is politically correct; one isn’t.
What about the kids who are called racially deroratory names BY minorities? Huh? What is that? I guess thats not racism, is it?
I am so tired of people excusing racism by blacks and liberals.
The same rules apply to everyone or they apply to nobody.
Flip the races and the presentation Sherrod gave would have instantly set off PC alerts in everyone.
Were she white and the farmer black, she would have had to start by saying, “I’m going to tell you a story that reflects badly on me.”
She would have had to apologize *while* telling of her racist reaction.
She would have had to tell the story at arm’s length.
Had she not taken done so, she should have expected the audience to either go silent with shock or boo and hiss at her.
Those are the rules and they apply to her too.
Sarah Kuvasz: Everybody I’ve heard use the term racial consciousness does it to camoflouge racist activities performed by a preferred racist group, like the NAACP. One of the most serious racist groups extant.
NAACP: The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.
This is not to say that people don’t often struggle with bias, including African-Americans. That doesn’t make the NAACP a racist group. The Tea Party is not a racist organization, however, they have been wrongly ignoring racists and racism in their midst. Even when it’s there, they just can’t see it:
Sarah Kuvasz: Similar to the KKK. Exact same attitudes, one is politically correct; one isn’t.
The KKK used terrorism against innocent people to prevent them from voting or organizing. The NAACP has a history of peaceful protest under the U.S. flag. You really don’t seem to understand how racist that sounds, and how hurtful that is.
Ms Sherrod was not a government employee at the time of the encounter with the farmer. She was employed by a group of black farmers in Georgia. She did not go to work for the government until about 5 years ago. Also her father was killed by white men. I grew up during those years, in the south, I am white, and I remember my anger, I remember my RAGE, at the murders, the beatings, the indignities! Yes, the Democratic party was a racist organization then, but thanks to Lee Atwater the Republican party took them all in when the Democratic party expelled them. You people sound just like those people I had to live with 50 years ago! Nothing has changed. There is a verse in the Old Testament: Nothing is as evil as the human heart>
An old adage says, “Tell me who you walk with, and I will tell you who you are”
Why does Miss. Shirley Sherrod, as a representative of the Department of Agriculture having to deal with people of all races would identify herself with a racist organization such as the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
Its name alone screams out discrimination “ We at the NAACP are indeed biased towards colored people, we are indeed racists and anti white.” It is apparent that Miss. Sherrod is just another crowd-pleasing black separatist wanting to impress her own kind, the black bros and the black sistas of the NAACP.
Does Miss. Sherrod really believes that her former painful encounters with murderous, bigoted, and ignorant white people gives her the right to act in the same way towards all white people? Miss. Sherrod pays little attention to the God she invokes, and who says, “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”
By her own admission Miss. Sherrod helped the white farmer not because he was a fellow human being in need, but she helped the white farmer because she wanted him to give her superiors at the Department of Agriculture a favorable report concerning her work ethics. This is what she said, “I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I — I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the — or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.”
Miss. Sherrod went on to say, “So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had…attended some of the training that we had provided, ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him. That’s when it was revealed to me that, ya’ll, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes, ’cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I’ve done my job.”
So, Miss. Sherrod had an epiphany and discovered that the straggle is not about blacks against whites, but rather the straggle is about the poor against the rich. Therefore Miss. Sherrod took the white straggling farmer and placed him in the hands of one of his own kind, a white lawyer. But the God she professes didn’t say, ‘Love the poor as yourself” the God she professes says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” A neighbor is another fellow human being, regardless of skin color.
If it looks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, and if it walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Why in God’s green earth people liken Miss. Shirley Sherrod claim they are not racists, but they join well known racists organizations such the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 100 Black Men of America (100BMOA), African American Planning Commission (AAPC), African American Speaker Bureau (AASB), Black Culinarians Alliance (BCA), Blacks In Government (BIG), Black Women In Sisterhood For Action (BISA, Miss Black USA (MBUSA), National Registry of Black Baby Names (NROBBN), National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI), National Association of Blacks In Criminal Justice (NABCJ), National Association of Black Accountants (NABA), National Association of Black Hotel Owners (NAOBHO), United States Black Golfers Association (USBGA), The National Council of Negro Women, Inc. (NCNW).
Blacks have distanced themselves from mainstream America by having their own black TV channels, their own black beauty pageants, their own black colleges and universities, their own black history month, and their own black holidays. Now allow me to drive the last nail into the coffin of black racism by disclosing the fact that blacks have their own National Anthem besides “The Star-Spangled Banner”. Black Poet James Weldon Johnson first wrote “Lift Every Voice and Sing” as a poem in 1900, and later Johnson’s brother, John Rosamond Johnson set the poem to music, and by 1920 the NAACP had proclaimed the song the “Negro National Anthem.”
The Department of Agriculture should reinstate Miss. Shirley Sherrod with the condition that she will no longer associate with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which is a racist and separatist organization, and with any other organization whose agenda is to promote the black race or any race in particular. The US Government must be a colorblind entity, and from now on it must adapt the same policy for all of its active employees.
It shows he is a low life and it also shows he’s not a man in my opinion. When a man can admit he has done something wrong and says, “I’m sorry”, that makes him more of a man than just about anything he can do or say.
[Yes, Breitbart needs to apologize; he needed to do it yesterday -admin]
Let us be clear on one of the factors that continue to drive racism and that is “group think”; it can keep us loyal to behavior that keeps from living the Gospel. There is no excusing it and any reasoning with it should be followed fervent desire to rid ourselves of such a negative thought process.
For those folks who post here that feel I am engaging in group think, I am willing to listen and dialogue with anyone on this or any other issue and to take my lumps when appropriate.
But I know what I hear and 16 years of Catholic education has taught me to identify mendacious and duplicitous language.
Most people eventually play theirs cards openly anyway; that goes for all of us.
thank you
Sorry, there’s not even a remote equivalence. The left ignores the Journolist scandal because there is no scandal – the Journolist excerpts tell us that certain people on Journolist (typically the lefty think-tank types) wanted stories spikes, wanted certain people called racist… and calmer heads prevailed (left journalist types) so IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. All that Journolist reveals is that the liberal media is very good at resisting the far-left impulses of the liberal base.
As for swearing off race-baiting… here’s a short summary of what happened in the past news cycle. NAACP calls on Tea Party to renounce its racist elements. Tea Party says “No racists here!” Oh wait, turns out there really is a bona fide racist, and he’s uncovered quickly, then rightly ostracized by reasonable people of all political persuasions. Ok, tit for tat, the right calls Sherrod racist. NAACP and WH fall over themselves to ostracize her. But wait, turns out she’s not a racist at all! Oops. NAACP and WH flagellate themselves for trusting the right, and swear they’ll never do anything so stupid again.
What’s the lesson an uninvolved observer would take from all this? It’s not “ignore all accusations of racism.” It’s to ignore all accusations of racism… when they come from the right. Way to score one, Breitbart. Own goal. Ugh…
Anchoress,
You’re one of the more persuasive pundits across the spectrum, so let’s go through this NAACP/tea party thing step by step. Some good ol’ true or false.
1 At Tea party rallies, there have been people who carried racially offensive signs and placards. TRUE/FALSE.
2 Some in the crowds have been verbally abusive towards African American congressmen and others. TRUE/FALSE
3 The NAACP certainly did not say, despite widespread reporting that it had, that the Tea Party movement is racist. TRUE/FALSE.
4 A number of people at Tea party rallies question Obama’s birthplace, and make crude attacks on his blackness. TRUE/FALSE.
5 Their numbers, proportion and influence is not clear, but most not partisan people give the tea party the benefit of the doubt, in saying that they are not representative of the whole. TRUE/FALSE.
6. Nonetheless the presence of these people within the ranks of the tea party creates an image problem that they need to address. TRUE/FALSE
7. If you say your message is about big government, spending and taxes, you should have no trouble separating yourself from the racially inspired and birther fringes. TRUE/FALSE.
There was nothing wrong with what seems to me to be a properly worded statement from the NAACP. Why, you even quote it yourself. It calls on the TP to condemn “racist elements in the Tea Parties”.
It’s a reasonable resolution, given the fact of, err…. racist elements in the tea parties! However unrepresentative they may be.
The furious reaction on the right— and even your failure to see the nuance— is quite telling.
[It's "telling"? I am not sure what it's "telling" you. This blog was very quick to question the first tape and demand fairness for Sherrod. Are you telling me that any gathering of any crowd has to be so thoroughly checked out and vetted so as to ascertain who the fringe crazies are--for ejection--before the crowd's legitimacy can be ascertained? Is that what you're saying? Because the only way to do that would be to embrace a chilling invasion into the thoughts and motives of lots of people. You get a crowd of people, you get your crazies in there; that's just how it is. And I am not going to launch a defense of the tea party because - as I have stated dozens of times -I'm not a tea partier. I have reservations about almost everything. But having said that you don't have to look far into a search engine to see tea partiers repudiating racism, jeering racists they discover in their midst, etc. And it is because the tea partier HAD in fact made those repudiations that the NAACP's statement was an unnecessary provocation. As I wrote, it would have been a very good thing if the NAACP, in all its historic credibility, could have somehow noted those repudiations, rather than ignoring them. Who knows, perhaps if they had acc-ent-u-ated the positive, none of the rest of this might have occurred, b/c that statement seems to be what set Breitbart off. Which means...oh...yeah...the impetus was still that unnecessary statement. It's an imperfect world. And what it would take to make it "perfect" is a little frightening, so we'll just have to learn to deal. Meanwhile:::::GENERAL NOTICE TO COMMENTERS::::::My dog is sick today and I'll be at the vet. I'll be in a bad mood so don't expect me to engage, much. If something goes into moderation it will stay there until I get back, and if it goes into spam b/c you've posted an unembedded url, that will stay there, too. -admin]
The story of Shirley Miller Sherrod is morphing from “anti white racist” to “human rights advocate”
She grew up in the racially afflicted south.
In 1965 her father, Hosie Miller, a black man and a deacon at Thankful Baptist Church, was shot to death by a white farmer in what ostensibly was a dispute over a few cows,
The all-white grand jury didn’t bring charges against the shooter.
That summer, when she and several other blacks went to the county courthouse to register to vote, the county sheriff blocked the door and even pushed her husband-to-be, Lester Sherrod, down the stairs, she said.
She went on to earn her master’s degree in community development from Antioch University in Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Sherrod returned to rural Georgia to help minority farmers keep their land. Because of discriminatory lending practices, black farmers were losing their farms in the late 1960s and ’70s.
Sherrod co-founded New Communities Inc., a black communal farm project in Lee County, Georgia, that was modeled on kibbutzim in Israel. Local white farmers viciously opposed the 6,000-acre operation, accusing participants of being communists and occasionally firing shots at their buildings, Sherrod said.
When drought struck the South in the 1970s, the federal government promised to help New Communities through the Office of Economic Opportunity. But the money was routed through the state, led by segregationist Gov. Lester Maddox, and the local office of the Farmers Home Administration, whose white agent was in no hurry to write the checks, she said.
It took three years for New Communities to get an “emergency” loan, she said. By then it was too late.
With black-owned farms heading toward extinction, Sherrod and other activists sued the USDA. In a consent decree, the USDA agreed to compensate black farmers who were victims of discrimination between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1999. It was the largest civil rights settlement in history, with nearly $1 billion being paid to more than 16,000 victims. Legislation passed in 2008 will allow nearly 70,000 more potential claimants to qualify.
USDA hired Sherrod as its Georgia director of rural development in August 2009. She was the first black person in that position; of 129 USDA employees in Georgia, only 20 are black, she said.
Despite her father’s killing and the injustices that followed, the racial hatredshe has fought all her life, and now her quick exit from the USDA, Sherrod refuses to become bitter.
“I can’t hold a grudge. I can’t even stay mad for long,” she said. “I just try to work to make things different. If I stayed mad, if I tried to hate all the time, I wouldn’t be able to see clearly in order to do some of the things that I’ve been able to do.
“Even with this, I’m not angry. I’m not angry. I’m out of a job today, but I’m not angry. I will survive. I have. I can’t dwell on that. I just feel there’s a need to go forward.”
Even Conservatives has shown a great respect for this black woman who has spent her life fighting discrimination.
And now the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administration is admitting that they should have taken the time to listen to her whole speech instead of just the doctored version posted on a conservative blog which seemed to show her saying she “held back” from helping a white farmer stay on his land.
Even The white farmer and his wife who are at the center of this controversy praised Sherrod for helping them fight to keep their farm from foreclosure.
Shirley Miller Sherrod can certainly hold her head up high
She is an example of the best qualities that all of us should emulate in our racially divided country.
[which is why I said days ago she should write a book. thanks for the lecture. -admin]
This is an evil game, and I don’t say this lightly. I could go on and on about this, but for now, I would say that conservative cluelessness and superficiality (reverse discrimination!, Rev. Wright’s a racist!, etc.) on race was a key factor in my drifting away from association with conservatism and libertarianism. There are three prominent elected African Americans associated with the right – Blackwell, Steele and Watts (although I don’t think any of them currently holds office).
When Rand Paul went off about the public accomodations section of the Civil Rights Act, I tried to have discussions with libertarians, in particular, and persuade them to see that private property should not always trump the public purpose of remedying systemic wrongs that couldn’t be fixed without addressing and protecting citizens’ right to travel freely throughout the country. Ring wing hardheadedness (callouslessness?) on this, I think, explains why the coming of the African American conservative voting bloc will never happen. Whether an intentional feature of “private” or not (it certainly is/was for some), African Americans understand “private[s]” usefulness in making their lives a hassle, and it is a central feature in how they understand the American story of freedom.
And then, to see TeaPartiers wearing “I Marched for Freedom” buttons is just too much. Maybe you or your family members served in the military, but the right didn’t “march for freedom” during the era from which that symbol derives. I don’t get offended easily, but that comes close. Maybe, it’s just more embarassment.
The fact is, the Rand Paul line on public accomodations is a more-or-less mainstream opinion for non-Democrats, one that more-or-less guarantees that African Americans will continue to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.
The right relies on abstractions claiming neutrality of principle, while African Americans overwhelmingly see it differently, and perhaps are justified in looking for ‘gotcha’ revelations of motives. Instead of retaliation, maybe they could start looking at taking this seriously as doing so would actually require a true governing philosophy that addresses the public good as something more than just a matter of chance outcomes.
I’m sorry. I did go on and on.
MinnItMan
As a mother of a conservative bi-racial (black/white) young man I can assure you that there is a burgeoning black conservative voting bloc with impact.
Many black people are beginning to see that the Democratic Party had become the 21st century plantation.
Google black/afro-american conservatives and current elections they are involved in.
thank you
jonna
“the tape wasn’t about nailing Sherrod, it was about demonstrating the racism of the NAACP audience; it was a response to their wicked attempt to paint the Tea Party as racist.”
dittos … and boy did they take the reverse race baiting. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of racists.
And what proof did the NAACP have for their tea party race charge? none … except that supplied by the journOlisters. All they needed to know is the journOlisters would carry the lies.
“Google black/afro-american conservatives and current elections they are involved in.”
I did. I found exactly one in the first ten hits. I changed the search a little, to “black african american conservatives and current elections.” It had a slightly better yield, but also was instructive that this is a pretty old meme (which I already knew) – “waiting for the black [African American] conservative political surge.” I gotta say, much as I would like to see it happen, I wouldn’t hold my breath, either.
Why? Well, for one thing, I don’t think conservatives give the Civil Rights movement its due. At best, there is a grudging acknowledgement that it happened, and we have to live with it. The Rand Paul remark, on the other hand, is pretty good evidence that there is a significant faction that always maintained “it went too far,” that it’s remedy violated basic American principles. Crudely put, “my freedom trumps ‘our’ freedoms.”
Let me put it this way. While it’s true that 82% of congressional Republican supported the CRA (and received 0% of the credit), and only 69% of Democrats did support it, Democrats received 100% of the blame. This has been a huge factor in politics ever since, and radically re-shaped how the two parties communicate to their bases and prospective supporters, and regrettably, makes it fair game to question motives. And the questioning of motives essentially makes politics into war.
You can talk about the “liberal plantation” all you want – and I might agree with a lot of it – but the fact (my interpretation of the fact at least) remains that Democrats suffered greatly for the most far-reaching expansion of constitutional guarantees to citizens since the either the abolition of slavery or the extension of the franchise to women. Republicans, on the other hand, developed a whole new model of appealing to voters’ resentment of the same, to their benefit, profit and electoral success. And they also saw their support from African Americans fall off the cliff.
The Breitbart/NAACP flap is just politics and about collecting scalps. You or your son can play whatever role you want in this tit-for-tat game.
If, on the other hand, you’re about something larger, then you might see the Founders, wise as they were, didn’t have all the answers, and that it fell to later generations to deal with the unfinished business of securing the blessings of liberty.
Much as I like tax cuts and economically efficient tax policy, Conseratives/Republicans/Libertarians have yet to do anything so grand. More often, they shout about Patrick henry while going in the opposite direction: deny gays the right to get married; criminalize and harshly penalize; militarize; etc. Let me be more specific: I recently had to let go an employee whose immigration status is perfectly legal, but whose documentation is in bureacratic limbo, making that person’s driver’s license unrenewable. Punitive, bureacratic, irrational and inhumane. What about my freedom? What about having no problem with legal immigrants? What about supporting the troops (the person happens to be the spouse of a veteran)?
@Zachriel:
Thank you for correcting my mis-perception of her being a government official 24 years ago.
-BUT-
1. Would you approve of an organization if the races were reversed?
2. I’ve watched the video, and she talks in ways about race that is utterly unacceptable for a duly appointed government official. She talks in ways that would be unacceptable for a white person in a public setting because it would rightfully draw people to conclude that the person speaking was a racist. She’s a racist, and she has no business serving in a government that is lawfully obligated to be race-neutral.
3. Are you telling me that this group (with a very dubious mission) has never received taxpayer funds?
4. Do you think it is acceptable for someone to discriminate against a person of another race because they are “uppity”, or in her words, “superior to me”, providing they are not a government official and not distributing tax payer funds? Even if you do (as a matter of personal freedom) -do you think she warrants an apology for such disgusting behavior?
“She …went far beyond reasonable expectation to help.”
How do you know that? Is this the only white couple she worked with? Do you have some special proof that this couple is even the one in her story? I guess you think it’s beyond “reasonable” to not be a racist?
[Mark M: 3. The crowd is clearly racist...]
“…The crowd is exhibiting racial consciousness”
rubbish. Funny how they are agreeing with all the wrong parts. The NAACP got it right the first time when they said that the crowd’s reactions were “disturbing”.
Isn’t the NAACP claiming to have been duped by Breitbart because they were unaware of the full context of the video?
“Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake…”
linked
[I linked to the catched version since the original is "unexpectedly" disappeared from their server.]
Who owes who an apology?
Mark M: 1. Would you approve of an organization if the races were reversed?
Consider the phrase National Association for the Advancement of White People. They are simply not valid parallels.
“Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
Mark M: 2. I’ve watched the video, and she talks in ways about race that is utterly unacceptable for a duly appointed government official.
That she has struggled with and overcame bias in her past, a bias based on more than its fair share of injustice?
Zachriel: She …went far beyond reasonable expectation to help.
Mark M: How do you know that?
A couple of reverse racist dirty hippies told us so.
Sorry, Zachriel, but the fact that you are making charges of race-baiting without acknowledging that the NAACP is the father of such tactics shows that you are here to push an agenda and nothing more.
Ryan Waxx: the fact that you are making charges of race-baiting without acknowledging that the NAACP is the father of such tactics shows that you are here to push an agenda and nothing more.
Race-baiting long precedes the origin of the NAACP, which was formed in response to lynchings and race riots.