Like the Anchoress (whom I quoted when I addressed the matter), I wanted to hear more before rendering judgment on (former) USDA official Shirley Sherrod before passing judgment. Once again, that blogress pretty much expresses my feelings on the matter:
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.
Then, she goes on to put the story in a larger context:
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.
Read the whole thing. Via Instapundit who has a great roundup.
Our reader ILoveCapitalism makes a good point that the extended video reveals that she hasn’t let go of her groupthink mentality:
The full video Sherrod video has been released. She goes on to explain that she set aside her racial choice when she realized that poor whites were also being held down by The Man. (my phrase) Translation: when she traded her racism for Marxism. (I mean, like there’s a real difference. They’re both forms of collectivism: refusing to evaluate an individual on her merits, just seeing her as an appendage of the group.)
She may have treated the poor white farmers with dignity, but would she have treated more well-to-do farmers with respect if they had come to her office seeking redress of some grievance related to government regulation? (This point may be moot as her office may not have deal with such grievances.)
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.
May this be a lesson for the Reverend Wrights of this world. And those in the Justice Department who would dismiss cases when the targets and/or victims of racial animus were not members of officially sanctioned oppressed ethnicities.
ADDENDUM: Dan Riehl offers a different perspective:
In Sherrod’s view, there is no one world, or even two. There are three. The elite, or wealthy, the whites, propped up over blacks, and then there are blacks. Far from the post-racialAmerica some of her rhetoric would lead you be believe she embraces as a vision, this is a woman trapped by views of race and class that make her a poor public servant at best. Listen to these three minutes and decide for yourself.
THe NAACP is like “Gay Inc.”, it’s not in their interest to actually be effective…it’s to just to promote a continual-sense of aggrievement and victimhood…while passing the collection plate.
Actually, the issue of race in America is very simple. Most black Americans hate white folk. End of story.
Do not forget that Shirley Sherrod played her NAACP group with all the right nuances and pauses for head bobbing and mummers of understanding and agreement. She was not delivering a message so much as playing to the choir.
She may not have been telling a tale of how she got even with the white man, but she told the tale in a tongue that satisfied the bigotry in the room.
Nothing prevented Shirley Sherrod from presenting her story as a morality tale and how she put race behind her in dealing with the case. Instead, she took the plantation route and did the whole thing in black political ebonics.
That is as silly/wrong as saying any of the following:
– Most white Americans hate black folk.
– Most straight Americans hate gay folk.
– Most gay Americans hate straight folk.
This is a complicated issue; I’m ambivalent about my own comment, Dan, which you quoted.
Sherrod says many false things, but I want to focus on her claim that it’s about the poor (i.e. have-nots) vs. those who “have”. That is a typical left-wing, infantile view of wealth and money: that they are not earned, not created by individuals, but things which drop of the sky, and the question is how they should be “distributed”.
When you are a child in a family, that is how it is: the food or PlayStation or whatever just appears – your parents just suddenly have it in-hand – and if you have siblings, the question is how it is going to be distributed among you-all. And if you don’t all get the same, it’s “not fair”. Anti-capitalists are people who have never progressed beyond that puerile thinking. Sherrod is apparently one of them.
Having said that: There are a lot of things wrong with America’s economic system. There are ways in which the system is set up to loot productive people, holding them back. Government, sometimes if Republicans are in power and always if Democrats are in power, does re-distribute from the productive to the unproductive – which includes that it re-distributes from the working / up-and-coming poor (think small business) to America’s limousine-socialists, as I’ve explained in other comments.
Sherrod correctly senses, as many of us do, that much in America is not as it should be. But, being (let’s face it) both a Marxist and a racist, she thinks the answer is more government re-distributionism – looting others, including the productive, to benefit her and hers. Reminds me of Ashpenaz.
(and Levi, Tano, etc.)
Let me get this straight. She has her prejudicial (some would say racist) views, she admits that she is prejudicial, she overcomes those views and does her job, WHICH SHE’S PAID FOR, and then gets judged because she’s prejudice (some would say racist). hmmmm. I say hmmmmm, because there are so many on the left that judge people on what they are supposedly thinking and not on there actions. Here, it’s not supposedly thinking. Sounds like just desserts.
I would even go further in that there are some left wing organizations that project racist motives on actions of those on the other side of the political devide. Throw racist accusations at every chance, with no evidence of even thought.
Suffice to say, that just because I value individual freedom and liberty, I am getting tired of being accused by people who don’t know me of being racist, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, bigotted and homophobic.
…And Eric Holder accuses America of being cowards in discussing the issue of race. I wonder why. Could it be the character attacks using the racist tag, instead of actually discussing the policy issues at hand.
I’d also add, that Bretibart states he recevied the video edited as he showed it. She may have been a victim of ‘friendly fire’ (Hey, I’m a lot more open minded than I was 20 years ago, 18 year old me would make Seena-Anna look like a flower child) but it’s funny how eager people were to be thrown under the bus.
The rush to being non-judgmental is a bit confusing to me.
My (bigoted?) eyes still see a woman talking with a group who interact with one another in the nuanced way that people who belong to the same “you know what I mean” club practice.
In fact, I would liken it to a Gay Patriot addressing a liberal gay group with due deference to their pet prejudices.
You can not blush away the fact that Shirley Sherrod, in context, was a black woman talking to the liberal blacks in a comfortable parlor talk to her clique.
I would hope that a Gay Patriot addressing gay liberals would take a clear message directly to the group.
I would hope that a black person with a morality tale would deliver it to the NAACP in clear terms.
I also admit that this backing off of the first reactions, makes each of us who “joined” the chorus look like jerks until we join the parade and withdraw from our comments.
I am not going to do that. The dialog between the races or about the races within a race needs to be clear, unambiguous and principled. I do not see a clearly principled woman in the abbreviated tape nor in the extended version.
The abbreviated tape is not the “gotcha” moment of someone being an ass, but neither is it a demonstration of taking an important principle to the masses in an effort to redirect their views.
The NAACP is still the same bunch of bigots and Shirley Sherrod still acted the jester to their court of victimhood.
I must say though
that when Ms Sherrod said…
“I took, the white farmer to see one of his own, ”
my racism antenna went up. NO?
If a cracker said the same thing about a black client….
heliotrope, if I addressed a group of gay liberals, I would start by addressing their prejudices–their narrow view of Republicans and other “right-wingers.”
Dan,
Point made. I have no doubt that as a man of principle you would stand your ground from the outset. My gripe with Shirley Sherrod is her kvetching with her homies. (Sorry for the mixed ethnic slang, but I don’t think an equivalent word exists in black liberal ebonics.)
So I am being silly, am I, ILC?
If it isn’t animosity towards white Americans that keeps 95% of black Americans voting for the Democrats, then what is it? Do tell.
And I mean that seriously. I look forward to your explanation.
Not what I said. I said the quoted *statement* was equally as silly/wrong as the 3 statements I gave. If you believe the one is right, logically you should believe the others are right. But none of them are. My point was to illustrate the logical structure, or lack thereof – what I might call the “illogical” structure – with more examples.
First, it’s 90%. Second: I would say, groupthink and habit. Which amount to intellectual laziness, which we are all guilty of in *some* area of life.
There is a saying, which I can’t quite remember but here is my butchered version: Never explain as “hate” what can be explained by simple incompetence, and, never explain as incompetence what can be explained by simple inertia.
P.S. What is structurally illogical (therefore wrong) about all 4 statements is that they clump people together by characteristic X, then mind-read the alleged fact that most of them would therefore feel Y. In other words, characteristic X allegedly functions as the determinant of thought, feeling or behavior Y. I thought only Marxists thought like that.
P.P.S. A characteristic may determine something within the same logical domain. For example, feelings are a psychological matter, and so may be broadly determined by some specifically-psychological characteristic. But not by a non-psychological characteristic, such as “black”.
The more Shirley Sherrod babbles on and on, the more of “Shirley Sherrod in Context” we get to see.
I hope the MSM keeps her front and center and lets her gums flap endlessly. She is the gift that just keeps on giving.
The black community organizer and social justice world is packed cram-jam-full of angry progressives who have a thinly veiled desire to mau-mau the crackers. At least the Black Panther guy of voter intimidation fame is willing to get right to the meat of his philosophy.