The only aspect of the Shirley Sherrod controversy that I find interesting is related to a phrase she used in explaining her dealings with the poor white farmer. She said, “So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/21/2010-07-21_shirley_sherrod_speech_the_words_that_spurred_a_controversy.html
Now I don’t have a problem with Ms. Sherrod’s use of the phrase. I’m not offended in the least. But, my question is, is it permissible for a white federal bureaucrat to use that phrase (“…his own kind would take care of him”) to describe his/her dealings with an African-American?
July 23rd, 2010 | 8:39 pm
Alan Jacobs has responded to your post at The American Scene. In part, he writes:
“I have a question of my own: How does Robert Cheeks think that Shirley Sherrod was using that phrase? I ask not because I think there’s anything particularly or inappropriately aggressive about Cheeks’s question, but because it seems so oddly irrelevant. It’s a question that would only arise, I think, in the mind of someone who doesn’t fully grasp that Shirley Sherrod was telling a story. Sherrod was not delivering a lecture; she was not presenting a position paper; she was not outlining policies and procedures. Instead she was narrating events that occurred twenty-four years ago — and among those events, the ones she was clearly most interested in were internal, mental: her chief purpose in her talk was to deliver an account of her own state of mind and how it changed. …
… everyone in that room understood what kind of story Shirley Sherrod was telling: it was a testimony, a conversion narrative, of the kind that Christians have told in churches from time immemorial. If you think that Shirley Sherrod endorses thinking of white people as being of a different “kind” than her, you may as well also think that St. Augustine endorses the stealing of pears.”
Link to Storytelling
July 24th, 2010 | 10:03 am
Mr. Jacobs has it right on the one particular piece of this tiresome (but unfortunately important) mess. I cannot bear to even take a look at what his AS comrade Conor Friedersdorf is writing about this. He must be loving it, wallowing in it to his delight, because it is REAL case of what C.F. has been largely crying wolf about for ages: irresponsible conservative populist punditry stoking the worst kind of populist conservative idiocy.
I’ve been, of all places, over in the comment sections of (FT blog) Gateway Pundit, trying to talk sense to the one-liner “she’s a racist!” conservatives over there. Jim Hoft is behaving utterly disgracefully. Below I’ll post a few excerpts.
July 24th, 2010 | 10:36 am
So here’s two comments of mine over at Gateway Pundit, edited and slightly re-done:
A.) Breitbart messed up. In several ways. I understand what he’s trying to do overall, and I’m rooting for him overall, but he messed up. Period.
C.) And contrary to Breitbart, the tape does NOT show the NAACP meeting approving of racist remarks–one or two instances of perhaps nervous laughter proves nothing. Rather, the audience seems to be waiting to see where she’s going to go.
D.) The real relevance of Shirley Sherrod being married to Charles Sherrod, is not that she’s thus linked to Bill Ayers, but rather to MLK! She’s married, in other words, to a John Lewis type, a man who risked his life to bring about civil rights reform. Take a look at young Charles Sherrod registering rural voters on p. 689 of Taylor Branch’s Parting the Waters. Yes, that’s a BOOK, a big book I’m talking about, and just as I’d tell liberals that they might want to sit their butts down and READ, say, the Federalist Papers sometime, perhaps a few of you ought to read this one and get a more thorough sense of what blacks were up against…
E.) Now I do not know what Mr. and Mrs. Sherrod have been up to since 1966…the sad fact is, from any intelligent center-right perspective, the career of the Civil Rights movement as a whole and that of many of its leaders is a pretty sorry one from the late 60s on–lots of capitulation to bad black power politics, lots of political corruption, etc. Detroit ruined, for example. As for the individual leaders, well, there is the utter embarrassment that is Jesse Jackson, the horrid hate-speech of Harry Belafonte, the disturbing descent into crime of James Bevel, and finally even the disappointment to civil political discourse that is John Lewis (BTW–I think he may have heard a slur in the crowd, but his backing up the Carson/anti-T-party narrative to the hilt is nonetheless disgusting). All this is to say that we can guess that Sherrods are probably not very politically moderate…
F.) But here’s what I really wanted to say, then: this leap to tie S. Sherrod w/ Bill Ayers is sad, pathetic, and ignorant. And, “far left anti-white radical”? Asserted w/o any evidence provided? Disgusting, Mr. Hoft.
******************************************************************************
This conservative glee at calling others racist is unseemly. When you indulge in that sort of payback, you wind up accepting the idea that the merciless hypersensitive criteria for who will be counted a racist (so that the target gets linked with David Duke or Louis Farrakhan) makes sense. IT DOESN’T. And it came from the left. A poor Southern white who grumbles about the behavior of blacks in his neighborhood and who thrills when he sees the Stars and Bars is RACIST by this standard, but he may be one of the most generally decent persons you’ve ever met, and actually not hold the particular political and psuedo-scientific beliefs that properly qualify one as racist.
Similarly, S. Sherrod strikes me as a woman who for years has lapped up a black-power-shaped rhetoric touted by probably a majority of blacks, and has connected it to her family’s own very tangible suffering/oppression under very real racism. She lives in the liberal/black info cocoon and is clueless about conservatives. And so, when personally attacked, she insensitively accuses them of racism and says other unfair and unnuanced things, but not take-it-to-the-bank RACIST things.
She’s not qualified for this position, methinks, and now that she’s come into the light some of the fishy aspects of her hiring will inevitably be investigated, but explain to me again why we’re picking on her, and why, in the context of our long mistreatment by the MSM, this is somehow fair? Somehow smart?
…conservatives, let this conservative academic warn you–you’re getting stupider than you once were on race, because you’re letting the idiocy and injustice of the “criticize Obama and you’re racist” line block out all other information.
July 24th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Only if its also okay for him to say “I don’t like dealing with ‘you people’”
July 24th, 2010 | 3:39 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by blogs of the world, Daily Breaking News . Daily Breaking News said: http://euraeka.com/articles/6941961-Shirley-Sherrod-and-his-own-kind- #sherrod #aspect #shirley #phrase #nydailynews [...]
July 24th, 2010 | 11:53 pm
Based on this excerpt, I think Prof. Jacobs let emotion get the best of him. Let’s assume we’re all on the same page now – Ms. Sherrod’s remarks, as we know now, referred to her thinking in the past, as part of a greater story about how she grew out of such thinking about whites. Check. Shirley does, however, think Breitbart wants “all black people to be slaves again,” so let’s not make it sound crazy to connect the dots and venture she might still harbor some ignorant thoughts on race (though this is not what Bob was saying).
And as I read it, Mr. Cheeks is not questioning whether she changed her ways. The question, Professor, is if that statement was made by a white man, would the reaction be as forgiving, even given the correct context? Perhaps. But it is not unreasonable to ask, whether or not we’re tired of thinking about it.
July 25th, 2010 | 5:20 am
I quite agree with Mr. Jacobs’ answer to my inquiry regarding Ms. Sherrod’s actions directed toward the “poor white farmer,” e.g. the phrase she used was inappropriate.
As far as the rest of his essay, I did enjoy it but I do think that for whatever reason, Jacobs pretty much failed to provide what our Greek friends called “phronesis” or insight.
While I agree with Mr. Jacobs that Ms. Sherrod had a pneumatic/spiritual irruption, e.g. she had a “come to Jesus” event, and consequently saw that the “poor white farmer” had a great deal more in common with “her people” than previously acknowledged and that this is indeed a touching example of what the Good Lord can accomplish in people’s (all people’s) lives, she, very sadly, didn’t quite make it all the way across the river, as they say.
What Mr. Jacobs failed to take into account and the first point of consideration in this rather unseemly example of blatant racism is that Ms. Sherrod is an employee of the federal gummint. And, while she no longer discriminates against the now famous “poor white farmer(s)” she has not indicated a similar change of perspective for those non-poor whites that she comes in contact with daily as an apparatchik of the federal regime.
Consequently, the dismissal of Ms. Sherrod from gummint service is about as righteous an event as has occurred during President Obama’s year and a half in office.
July 27th, 2010 | 8:15 am
Carl Eric Scott, thank you for your efforts to “talk sense” over on what I think is a disgraceful blog day in and day out. For my own efforts, Hoft, who has never said a word to me personally, has blocked me from posting.
July 27th, 2010 | 8:18 am
. . . she has not indicated a similar change of perspective for those non-poor whites that she comes in contact with daily as an apparatchik of the federal regime.
I don’t find this at all clear. Indicated for? Should she speak for her co-workers, is that what you mean?
July 27th, 2010 | 9:02 am
Here is Willie Nelson, a friend of farmers, on Shirley Sherrod’s record of helping farmers:
” Farm Aid President Willie Nelson today declared his support of Shirley Sherrod, former director of the Georgia Field Office for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (the Federation), and called for her reinstatement as Georgia USDA State Director of Rural Development. Farm Aid has long-supported the Federation in its efforts to improve economic opportunities for family farmers in the South and has worked closely with Shirley Sherrod for 25 years.
–Since we started Farm Aid in 1985, the Federation has been a true friend and an ally in our work to keep family farmers on the land,” said Nelson. “During Ms. Sherrod’s time at the Federation, she made sure that all of the family farmers she worked with got what they needed to stay on their land. Ms. Sherrod has been a national leader for family farmers and a strong, knowledgeable advocate for all struggling farm families. Farm Aid is proud to support the exemplary work of Ms. Sherrod and the Federation.”
Farm Aid executive director Carolyn Mugar, echoing Mr. Nelson’s comments, said “Shirley Sherrod has dedicated her life to working on behalf of family farmers—regardless of race.” –
http://www.willienelson.com/story/news-farm_aid/willie_nelson_and_farm_aid_stand_with_shirley_sherrod_call_for_her_reinstatement_by_usda
July 27th, 2010 | 10:48 am
First, am pleased to see recommendation from Carl Eric Scott to read The Federalist Papers. Have — for many years– been urging people to see the first half of No. 57, which I am pretty sure offers all the counsel we need to get our nation back on its founding legacy track. (I think our neo-aristocratic leaders view the founding legacy with fear and loathing –thank you HT–kind of how the fictionally cinematic Henry F. Potter regarded George Bailey.)
Weeks before the Sherrod Situation, I sensed a certain lack of sympathy at a Bronx food stamp office. April 21, I learned I qualified for food stamps and was told to provide additional documentation, and was given ten days to comply. I mailed in three pieces of the requested documentation: birth certificate, social security income, proof of residence. Even before mailing these documents, I received my food stamp card, which got me through the rest of April and then May. When I used the card in June, I learned it had not been replenished.
Thought it would just take a bit more time for replenishment.
Meanwhile, card was in wallet that got lost or was lifted, and I went back to food stamp office for new card, which was sent within days. New card still was not replenished and went to food stamp office June 27, with the fourth requested document — letter from person loaning me money to pay monthly residential charges — to be told I was supposed to bring in documents–not send by mail. Was told office does not have the documents and my case had been closed. At this point was getting kind of upset and asked a senior supervisor if I could have some water.
One of this supervisor’s aides remarked: “Ah, he wants water, too.”
Then comes the Sherrod Situation. Perhaps Ms. Sherrod has insight my experience at a Bronx food stamp office. Yu see, I saw a smile on the face of the gentleman at the food stamp office who first told me my case was closed. As I lewft the food stamp office, June 27, I had the sense that I was kind of getting “The Treatment.” Nothing in the Sherrod Situation suggests to me that my initial reaction was off base.
I write this one month after that experience. I have yet to hear from the food stamp office.
Oh — one other thing — last December, I took the Census Bureau job test. Got a 90. Never heard from the Census people. Maybe a 90 score was too low. I did, of course, fill out my own census questionnaire. One of the questions asked for race ID. By law, required to be truthful in responding to the Census form, I checked “white.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact