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
July 20th, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #1
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.
>>> You wanna bet?
Sauce for the goose my dear Anchoress. It’s simply about making them play by the rules they force on others. Again, the objective here is to make them suffer enough so that they learn a lesson, and CHANGE those rules.
In the meantime, the Journolist has reporters on there basically saying “just pick any Republican and call him a racist” in order to shut him up.
Yeah….we read stuff like that, and you don’t think many of us don’t get a happy chuckle over this person getting thrown under the bus?
It’s all about the teachable moment. The left should consider this to be one of those.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:22 pm | #2
More to Sherrod/NAACP story than we know?…
Hmmm: Despite being defended by the white farmer she allegedly discriminated against, former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod will not get her job back. Sherrod “kept us out of bankruptcy,” said Eloise Spooner, 82. Sh…
July 20th, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #3
I tend to agree with you – but how does anyone know that the Spooners are the family that Sherrod was talking about?
July 20th, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #4
To me, Breitbart appears to be only the latest manifestation of a disturbing trend: blatant race-baiting has now become acceptable on the Right. Witness the furor over the NYC mosque (from some comments that have been made, you’d think we were still fighting the Crusades), and the Fox News crowd’s obsession with the “New Black Panthers” non-story.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #5
As usual your humanity shines thru. I am realizing that ideology and politics trumps all in our country. These are indeed dark days. We no longer have the capacity to think and evaluate information but rush in and let the arrows fly.
I am a devout Catholic and political conservative but I am getting weary of the ‘new’ media playing like Media Matters. I’m old school on the 2 wrongs don’t make a right and gotcha stunts don’t sit well with me. In politics as in life, we need to change hearts and minds by example. This was an example of the right playing dirty as well. Its sad.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #6
You’re being very smart about this Anchoress, and I appreciate the leadership.
but “The wife of the farmer Sherrod referenced in her story”
Um… I think that Sherrod has lied a lot and Spooner is not the farmer of the story.
Watch this interview In it, Sherrod denied the entire racism, so she is not repentant for her admitted racism in the NAACP speech.
In the CNN Video, Spooner’s wife claims Sherrod referred her to a black attorney. In the NAACP Video, Sherrod says she left the white farmer to white people to help their own kind.
Let’s face it: Sherrod’s story is flaky at best and we really shouldn’t trust her. I’m sure she knew a lot of struggling farmers and didn’t oppress all of them, and the fact that she claims a particular farmer is nearly meaningless theater.
Spooner wasn’t the wife of the farmer Sherrod oppressed, and the NAACP should immediately release the full video.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:34 pm | #7
Ms Sherrod can paint this however she wishes to paint this – she was racist when she spoke before an audience of racists (the NAACP). She catered to their ways –>I took him to ‘his people’ so they could help him AND how much I would have to give him to still look good = racist views.
The farmer’s wife may THINK that Sherrod attempted to help – but how many of us have encountered bureaucrats that pretend to work in our behalf, yet are merely making themselves look good. They may have been able to keep the farm if Sherrod had really tried to help them – she just pulled the proverbial wool over their eyes.
Her job was not to look at race – it was to help farmers. Most of us look at the PEOPLE and not their color.
I find it interesting that she has one stand out ‘white’ person. What of the others? What of the other cultures/nationalities?
[I wonder...when you say "the farmer's wife may THINK that Sherrod attempted to help..." don't you think you sound just a little bit like Sherrod talking about her preception that the man thought he was superior to her? Don't you think you're projecting a reality you cannot possibly know? admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 7:36 pm | #8
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Melissa Clouthier, The Anchoress, Sissy Willis, Sissy Willis, Gabriel Malor and others. Gabriel Malor said: In case you didn't click earlier, I usually find it worthwile to read when @TheAnchoress writes: http://tinyurl.com/37p8epx [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 7:42 pm | #9
But on the very same day you get the story from the Daily Caller about the JournoList, the conspiratorial talk about how to slam anyone, including fellow journalist Fred Barnes, with false accusations of racism.
“In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction. We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.”
July 20th, 2010 | 7:44 pm | #10
Great Post.
When race being used as a political tool becomes to much of a liability, we will all be better for it.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:47 pm | #11
yea aethestic statists will be “morally awaken” as you throw flowers when they throw grenades. its said politics ain’t bean bag.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:49 pm | #12
[...] Anchoress is where she was yesterday: In my post yesterday, I was pretty clear that the Breitbart tape wasn’t sitting well with me. [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 7:50 pm | #13
So let me get this straight. Breitbart puts out a dishonest hit piece aiming to push racial buttons.
This is somehow everyones fault? No it’s not. It’s the fault of Breitbart and everyone else (Fox etc ) who pushed the story. This is the same guy who published an article claiming that Bill Ayers wrote Obamas books.
About the NAACP and the Tea Party. The NAACP asked them to disavow racists in their ranks. It was denied that there were any racists in their ranks. Then Mark Williams , a prominent Tea Party leader who has appeared on Fox countless times and has been a big supporter of Sharron Angle , writes an obviously offensive and racist letter. He is then asked to resign. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NAACP WAS ASKING FOR.
I’m not sure if my comments were considered smug , but what seems smug to me is white conservatives lecturing black people on when it’s ok to call someone a racist. I wonder why they don’t want to play by your rules when it comes to that? Hmmmmm
July 20th, 2010 | 7:51 pm | #14
I admire your sense of “fairness” yet that sense of fairness isn’t seen in the same light by the Alinski crowd. And until they relent, I suggest we use their rules against them. It is indeed a sad time we live in, but this is no time to be faint of heart because they (The Left) will use our sense of “fairness” against us because they observe (rightly I think) that we will never be able to perfectly live up to our sense of fairness, preying on that vulnerability. They hope to incapacitate us into silence.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #15
[...] point about wider context presciently made yesterday by the Anchoress. Here’s what she offers today: You know what’s not singing to me, now? The argument that “the tape wasn’t about nailing [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #16
“So let me get this straight. Breitbart puts out a dishonest hit piece aiming to push racial buttons.”
No, that’s not straight at all. Why do you think he was dishonest?
He proved that many in the NAACP audience were pretty happy to hear about some obvious racism and corruption. He didn’t have more video, but the NAACP does. Every second you haven’t had access to the full video is the NAACP’s fault.
The rest of your comment appears to be an attempt to make red herring attacks. You don’t seem to have the ‘story’ straight on the Tea Party the attacks from the NAACP, but their claims are actual dishonest fabrications. Breitbart’s are not fabricated. Even if the full video discusses why Sherrod’s bigotry was wrong… it was still wrong. There’s no getting around that.
And she’s said a lot of things that have been refuted by others. That Spooner was dead, that she referred him to whites only, that the White House had her terminated…
Hell, if you check the youtube link I posted above, you see she even denies every discriminating on the basis of race! She’s actually contradicting the entire idea of her defense.
I understand the left needs a lot of concern trolls and overt liberals to pretend he’s a liar. After all, the journolist exposure probably involves Breitbart, the ACORN expose did too, and there’s probably a lot more where that came from.
But you guys keep saying he lied about something… and nothing he said ever gets debunked.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #17
Breitbart said in advance this was about the NAACP, so why doesn’t it “wash” that this is in fact about the NAACP, and not Sherrod? Why on earth would Breitbart care about Sherrod in the first place?
July 20th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #18
We are witnessing a resurgence of the politics of race for only one reason, we have an incompetent President that was elected based on his race. This incompentancy needs to be explained away or the subject changed. The left in is a position to do both, but their incompentance and heavy-handedness keeps catching them up. We will never get beyond this until we start judging pols based on character and not personality, and certainly not on race.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #19
[...] Interestingly enough, Ms. Sherrod isn’t blaming Breitbart, the Tea Party, or Right Wing pundits for her getting fired. She’s blaming the NAACP. [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 8:06 pm | #20
Palmtree-
Do you denounce Spencer Ackerman and his false charges of racism?
Does the NAACP do so?
If not, you obviously agree with that tactic.
Play by your own rules.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:07 pm | #21
I’d like to see the entire tape, as well as an explanation from her of what she meant, as well as an explicit statement that her initial reaction, which she speaks of in the excerpt, was wrong.
At this point, it is an open issue. It would be easier to give her the benefit of the doubt, but when her first reactions are to resign (which, even if in the face of pressure, tends to show a consciousness of guilt), and then to attack Fox, et al., which comes across as an attempt to deflect, it does not lead one to believe that she is entirely innocent.
It’s now up to the NAACP to authorize release of the entire tape.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #22
Or maybe that’s how the NAACP decides to call someone racist? Just pick anyone in order to shut them up?
Hey Palmtree, did the NAACP pick the Tea Party name out of a hat?
July 20th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #23
Shirley Sherrod’s claims that a 24 year old story is redeemed by the victims themselves doesn’t wash with the taunting attitude she displayed telling NAACP members 4 months ago that she dismissed “white” person to “their own kind”.
Second… Shirley Sherrod is party to a suspect legal “settlement” payout to 80,000 African-American “farmers” of whom only 26,000 were even participants in farming. How is that not a conflict of interest and a bigger story?
July 20th, 2010 | 8:09 pm | #24
Stoking the fire of racism on the part of the Black Caucus, NAACP, Black Panthers, the administration, The Speaker, and the left media whores are to blamed for this situation and not Breitbart. It is very unfortunate for Ms. Sherrod but she became a disposable pawn in this horrible game that is being played on all of us by the non progressive democrats.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:09 pm | #25
Red Herring attacks? Mark Williams is a racist.
He was a Tea Party leader. That is what the NAACP was complaining about. Is that direct enough?
Breitbarts article was written to imply that she was working for the USDA during the time she relates in the story. That is dishonest. He also did not (as far as I know) speak to anyone involved in the story. That is shoddy journalism. He also (it seems) only had a portion of the speech and decided to run with that, without knowing the whole context . That is both shoddy and dishonest.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #26
Mark Williams?
I don’t care about your red herring. That’s not relevant, palmtree, and you know it. Gotta spin spin spin, I guess.
Here’s the NAACP’s ‘full’ video.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #27
And up to the NAACP to explain why they were so comfy with the parts of the story where the white farmer was discriminated against?
Again, they obviously followed the Ackerman method and decided to shut up critics by picking a name to yell “racism” at.
And now so much for ever taking that organization seriously again. God knows what name they’ll pick out of the hat for the racist treatment next
July 20th, 2010 | 8:16 pm | #28
Actually I think the NAACP had specific reasons for what they said about the Tea Party, such as the Tea Parties affiliation with the CCC , a racist group. They mentioned a couple other examples but I can’t remember off the top of my head.
If I ever wonder about racism on the right , all I have to do is read the comment section at Free Republic or one of the Breitbart sites and it’s all there to see.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:18 pm | #29
Mark Williams is absolutely relevant as he proves that the NAACPs charges of racism were correct.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #30
palmtree, there’s no way to disprove your claims. Thinkprogress was proven to send a lot of racists into Tea Parties to bolster your claims.
But maybe there are some racist kooks.
Here’s the thing: you have to look to the fringes of a Tea Party rally to find what you’re looking for. You have to look to a comment section to find an isolated nut (or obvious moby).
For the Left, you don’t look at the fringe to find kooks. The kooks are center stage. Rev Wright, Shirley Sherrod, and a longer list, behind the podiums.
That’s why you pretend the Tea Party has to prove there are zero racists on the right. You’re trying to distort the issue. There will be some kooks at the fringe of all movements of millions of people. I think it makes a lot more sense to condemn the organizations, like NAACP, that put the racists behind the podiums (Rev Wright and Shirley Sherrod both have stood behind NAACP podiums).
July 20th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #31
Not to universally defend Breitbart from anything he may have done wrong, but the only thing you can convict him of (at this point) is taking things out of context (and only in regards to Shirley herself). By no means to I justify his actions in this regard BUT that’s all he’s done.
Also remember he did this not to convict Shirley for the purposes of going after Shirley but to convict the NAACP to counter their accusations against the tea party regarding racism. By showing a high disciple of the NAACP being so blatantly racist and thus convicting the NAACP of the crime they themselves accuse others of. This was not a move to crucify Shirley so much as to clearly show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the NAACP was clearly calling the kettle black.
The fact that Shirley lost her job as a result could be a bad thing. I for one see it as a sad state of affairs. However, we are fighting monsters, and perhaps Breitbart took it too far. Can I blame Breitbart? I’m not sure.
Does that make him a monster? Does that make me a monster? I’ll leave the judgement to God. I feel we have a country to save, and leave it at that.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #32
“The NAACPs charges of racism were correct.”
I thought those charges were that the N Word was shouted at a couple of CBC members.
I think you’re just a kook. The Tea Party HATES racists. I’ve been to 12 Tea Party rallies, and only encountered two examples of racism. One was an obvious liberal (she admitted it). The other was just a crazy person. Fringe.
You’re wrong. Deal with it.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #33
Sorry Palmtree.
But unless the NAACP denounces Ackerman’s “cry racism!” smears, they’re utter hypocrites not to be taken seriously.
And for that matter, you as well. Will you denounce Ackerman?
Your rules. Deal with it.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #34
Did NAACP condemn Bird the grand wizard? I guess that proves racism in the Dem party!
July 20th, 2010 | 8:30 pm | #35
By the way Palmtree-
You never denounced Ackerman? I wonder why??
July 20th, 2010 | 8:33 pm | #36
I think you were spot on with this statement –
“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.”
I think that the cry of racism is turned into a case of the boy who cried wolf too often. What a shame. The men and women who fought to have equality established in this nation had to fight real racism, not this manufactured racism, which is little more than a political tactic that has come back to bite them in the butt.
If the only relevance the NAACP has is calling out false racism, then the NAACP’s future is on short-time.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:52 pm | #37
I just watched this awful speech.
She notes that she is devoted to blacks. Even says ‘only blacks’, and talks about how she didn’t help a white farmer. But the white lawyer she referred him to sucked and told the white farmer to just give up his farm. She is so outraged by this terrible lawyer, that she realizes she should help all have-nots, even the white ones she doesn’t want to help.
In no way does she repent or apologize for racism. In no way does she describe her racist as wrong. 16:30 to 22:00 if you’re curious.
But watch the rest of the video. She sees opposition to Obamacare as racist, without really explaining her paranoia. She has no place to tell others not to make the accusation she so freely gives, but more importantly, the charge of racist sticks to her just as strongly now as it did before this ‘full’ video came out. Had Breitbart had the full video, he would have had zero reason to cut any of it. In fact, there’s tons of stuff in here he probably would have loved for you to see.
She goes on and on and on and on about government money we should thank President Obama for. And she is truly unfair to Obama opponents.
Finally, I repeat: she doesn’t show any contrition for her racism. She just doesn’t. She recognizes that she wants to help the have-nots too, some of whom are white, but she never says her discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. No one seems to find it to be a problem, either.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #38
The full tape has been released. It is not entirely exculpatory.
From the tape –
She accuses the farmer of racism (he tried to show he was “superior” to her) without any foundation.
After saying its about the poor and starting to say its not about race, she says “it is about white and black,” but the experience “opened [her] eyes.” (emphasis by Sherrod) She learned it’s about those who have and those who don’t.
Slaves and indentured servants were in the same boat, she says, poor whites and poor blacks were the same. “That’s when they created the racism that we know of today, they did it to keep us divided.” We have to get that out of our heads, she continues, there is no difference between us. The only difference is the people in power want to keep that power. It’s always about money. Opposition to healthcare reform was mean-spirited and racist, she charges, and Republicans oppose because we have a black president.
“It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people.” (emphasis by Sherrod) She’s come along way, got over hate. We need to work together, need to overcome divisions, she says, we need to get to where race exists, but it doesn’t matter.
———-
Watching the entire tape, Sherrod may or may not show herself to be racist, but she clearly shows herself to be a person that is overtly race conscious, still harboring racial grievances and seeing racism all over the place. She most certainly is not color-blind, either as a private individual or as a government official.
And she while she says she learned from her experience with the white farmer, she never explicitly apologizes or says that she was wrong to have thought that she wouldn’t help him much because he was white.
Apart from the racial comments, her remarks on the class struggle — the haves against the have nots, the powerful conspiring to keep the poor down — are not occasions for comfort.
Overall, having seen the entire tape, I’m not all that broken up that Sherrod is no longer working for the federal government.
July 20th, 2010 | 8:58 pm | #39
I’m also getting tired of the constant self-righteous demands for disavowals and apologies (from both right and left). There are certainly things that ought to be disavowed and apologized for. But the last few years, it seems, that has become the default response, usually delivered with a shocked and wounded expression, whenever one side wants to stigmatize the other. In that sense, it’s a version of turning your political opponent into a moral reprobate. Maybe some political differences rise to that level of significance, but most are simply differences of opinion. It makes me so tired of politics.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #40
Look , the Republican party made an effort to appeal to racists for decades. It was called the “southern strategy” and they publicly apologized for it. Some conservatives , such as Breitbart , are still playing this game.
I see no-one wants to touch the Mark Williams story with a ten foot pole.
As far as “Ackerman” I haven’t read enough about that yet, but I don’t support throwing around charges of “racist” without merit for political gain.
If that’s what he did then shame on him.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #41
the charge of racist sticks to her just as strongly now as it did before
I don’t know that it sticks “just as strongly,” but I would agree that the charge of racialist still sticks.
Unfortunately, the rest of my thoughts were eaten by the spam filter (again).
July 20th, 2010 | 9:04 pm | #42
The entirety of the first paragraph at your 9:00 post is totally and completely false, palmtree. They didn’t do it, and they didn’t apologize for it because they didn’t do it.
Look, just make your points. No need to lie.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:09 pm | #43
Bender, I understand your point.
She obviously has two motivations: helping blacks elevate as a group, and helping poor people. The poor white farmer brought a tension, and she helped the poor white farmer after initially casting him to whites to help.
She never apologizes for this, never repents, nothing at all like that. Her endless list of free money we should “Thank President Barack Obama for” is disgusting, but it’s not racist. A lot of what she says, and the audience reaction, shows she’s got a huge problem.
And of course, the accusations of racist she levels are extremely unfair. Certainly far less fair than anything I’ve heard against her.
And one really big point: Breitbart obviously did not selectively cut this full speech. There’s just too much awful crap in this speech he would have loved to expose. The whole speech is quite a bit worse, albeit for reasons beyond racism but including racism, than the Breitbart clip.
why is this so important? a lot of people are pretending this discredits Breitbart and ruins his brand, while an obvious Journolist expose is ramping up. We need to be fair to Mr Breitbart. There is just no way any reasonable person would believe he was being dishonest in his clip. It was an abrupt end to the clip… if it had gone on a couple of minutes you would have heard the racist condemn Obamacare opposition as based on racism *for no apparent reason*.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:09 pm | #44
From the Washington Post , 2005:
By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005
It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”
“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
July 20th, 2010 | 9:10 pm | #45
who fought the north in the civil war: democrats.
who did jim crow: democrats.
who did labor laws: democrats.
who filibustered the 1964 equal rights amend.: democrats.
who kills black babies with abortion: democrats
so stuff it you history impaired loser
July 20th, 2010 | 9:16 pm | #46
Here’s a quote from republican strategist Lee Atwater:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff.”
[Palmtree, have you READ the journolist stuff? Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” What is your argument, that beasts exist on both sides? Yeah, rain is wet, too. -admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 9:17 pm | #47
If people are going to lump Nixon’s horrible tactics in with the Tea Party, they are so blatantly giving up on legitimate discussion they are begging to be ignored, Newrouter.
The Tea Party REVELS in unity of races while the NAACP revels in racism in this video.
There are some fringe kooks at the Tea Parties sometimes… as I said I have seen 2 out of a dozen protests. One was a liberal, but the other was crazy. A huge movement will have some fringe nuts. Let’s not put nuts behind the podium, the way the NAACP did with Rev Wright and Shirley Sherrod.
Sherrod says the entire Tea Party is racist. It’s no surprise a jerk like that has no better argument. We’re out of money and facing financial collapse, and she’s going on and on about free money. Watch her speech: she is the natural enemy of the Tea Party because of the content of her character.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:17 pm | #48
the woman’s imputation of racism to opponents of our sad little president man’s redistributive dirty socialist health cares means she’s not fit to serve in the government of a democracy I think
She’s too dumb in her head. Dumb and mean.
bye bye lady
July 20th, 2010 | 9:23 pm | #49
Even if the Spooners are the family in question they do not get to decide the merits of Sherrod’s own actions. As the USDA correctly noted she never made any efforts to right the wrong (nor apparently did she ever notify the Spooners of her otherwise confessed wrongs.)
I seem to recall Polanky’s victim was willing to let things go, not that that mattered either.
[Watch the tape. admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 9:34 pm | #50
The rules for not being a racist boil down to “Don’t criticize black people unless you are black”. I understand why politicians have to pretend to take this transparent nonsense seriously, but I don’t know why the rest of us should. Only boring people get bored, and only racists accuse others of racism.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:43 pm | #51
She says she helped a white farmer that she abandoned so that ‘his own kind’ can help him. She abandoned him for many months. She claims his situation was terrible in some way, saying the state was doing something to foreclose on him that it didn’t ordinarily do.
After a long time, and when the farmer’s lawyer tells him to quit, she helps him. a little.
If this farmer were black, she would have helped him a ton more. she doesn’t hide this at all, and she never apologizes for it.
I was promised she would tell a story about how she faced her racism and realized it was wrong. THAT does not happen at all on this 40 minute tape. She just is willing to help a white too, if their situation is really, really, really awful.
It’s like being willing to help a black kid have your scraps if he’s starving, but thinking all whites deserve a 5 star meal. It’s racism, and it’s nasty. Could it be even nastier? Obviously, yes, but this is bad enough, and the spin of redemption is a complete fiction.
I’m sorry, but Breitbart didn’t distort anything, and I hope people who asked for the tape now use their knowledge to note this is pretty dang obvious. This full video is worse than the clip.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:44 pm | #52
I appreciate your intellectual honesty. While I do believe Breitbart didn’t have the full tape, I think he should have exercised more skepticism and waited to get more information before releasing it. I also think he should apologize to Sherrod for releasing a tape that did misrepresent her entire point. Even if it wasn’t intentional, the buck stops with him when he releases stuff.
I don’t understand people who say, “She did something racist so the rest doesn’t matter!” That’s an awfully unforgiving standard. The fact is she learned her attitude was wrong and ended up helping the guy all she could. That’s nothing she needs to apologize to us for.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:49 pm | #53
“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 make a very good point, but I am skeptical of just how much we would see that she indicted herself if we could see the whole tape: The tone of voice that she uses in the part we do see suggests that her contrition may be rather limited.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:54 pm | #54
pst314, her contrition was absolutely non-existent. She did eventually help the poor white farmer, but she never expressed that she was sorry she didn’t treat him as she’d have treated a black farmer.
She just thinks that, at some point, if a white is suffering enough, we should help them too, even though they are so white.
[Oh, so wait...now the goalpost gets raised again? Now it's not enough for her to finally help the guy AND admit that she's come along way from the days that she was committed to helping "just blacks." Now she has to be contrite and beat her breast, too? And over on the left, I see them trying to raise the goalposts, too. Far right and far left are more alike than they realize -admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 9:58 pm | #55
“pst314, her contrition was absolutely non-existent.”
Yes, but, well, I’m leaving open the possibility that the next (unseen) minutes of the video would show at least some….
July 20th, 2010 | 10:02 pm | #56
“Yes, but, well, I’m leaving open the possibility that the next (unseen) minutes of the video would show at least some….”
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic. My apologies if so. But I saw the whole speech and her contrition ain’t.
July 20th, 2010 | 10:09 pm | #57
So, enlighten me:
Did she “unsay” that she didn’t help the farmer as much as she could?
Did she “unsend” the farmer to “one of his own kind”.
Because if not, there’s still bigotry. Obvious bigotry. The kind that would get a white person fired.
OF COURSE she ends the story on a happy note. What were you expecting? This is a person giving a speech. This is supposed to be some kind of relevation?
Dustin: “She just thinks that, at some point, if a white is suffering enough, we should help them too, even though they are so white.”
Exactly. And apparently that’s enough for a “Brietbart Lied, a noble non-racist person’s career died” on this blog.
This is nothing like the Lott story, and furthermore I think the Anchoress has no clue what “out of context” means. It does not mean “but you cut out the part where I said nice things later!”, it means “you changed what I said by that omission”.
If I’m wrong, please kindly point out which part that was cut makes it unclear what she meant by taking him to “his own kind”. Tell me how Breitbart changed “I didn’t help him all I could” BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
[Watch the tape yourself. The story is not what you think. And I have not called Breitbart a single name. All I said was he was reckless. I'm not a drama queen. -admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 10:29 pm | #58
I will take a look at the whole thing, but your comment seems to have the same error the main piece had… Even if “The story”, as you call it, changes… that doesn’t necessarily change the details. Damning details.
And if those aren’t shown to be false, then all you are doing is pointing to the happy surface and ignoring the ugliness in the details.
July 20th, 2010 | 10:36 pm | #59
The supposed “unedited” version of the tape has a very conspicuous edit around 21 minutes in. It happens when she recalls a lawyer who had been working with a black farmer. After the edit the crowd is mysteriously laughing.
I wonder what was edited out?
July 20th, 2010 | 10:51 pm | #60
[...] Video: Andrew Breitbart Defends Serrod Video July, 20, 2010 — nicedeb Shirley Sherrod served as director of rural development in Georgia until yesterday. After an explosive video appeared on Big Government, where she made shockingly blatant racist statements, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack forced her to resign. [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 10:52 pm | #61
Regarding the wife of the “white farmer”. Said white farmer is unnamed. I’d like to see the evidence that the “wife” defending Sherrod is actually is the wife of the now famous “white farmer.” Presumably, Ms. Sherrod met with more than one white farmer in her tenure. Seriously, where’s the evidence?
My sympathy for Ms. Sherrod is limited. The publicity may have been the precipitating cause, but she was forced to resign because of her actions, not Breitbart’s or the NAACP’s. Actions which, until she noticed the camera, she was quite pleased with.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:04 pm | #62
[...] to Sherrod. Even Sherrod sees that much of the fault for all this lies with the NAACP (H/T: The Anchoress; she has a great roundup on all this). But I guarantee the rest of the left won’t let go if [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 11:08 pm | #63
[...] Perspective, from The [...]
July 20th, 2010 | 11:10 pm | #64
“Now it’s not enough for her to finally help the guy AND admit that she’s come along way from the days that she was committed to helping “just blacks.”
NO! ABSOLUTELY NO!
Treat the white man like you treat a black man, and vice versa. If you mess up, which I guess some do, and you tell a story about that, you should be quite sorry for the extremely wrong action of using what power you have in a racist fashion. Treating one race better than another is wrong.
Remember, this was a speech to the NAACP of all places.
I admit, the goal posts have adjusted. My impression of this situation has changed quite a bit. When I first saw the video, I thought she was denying help in her role as a federal official (a very reasonable take based on the evidence I and Breitbart had).
but I, and most reasonable folks, left room for other explanations. These other explanations were all going to be a racist scenario, though. And that’s exactly right.
She’s helping poor people too, not just black people, but she’s not sorry when she treats blacks better. I find that to be horrible. I bet you do too. You wanted to give her the full benefit of the doubt. You wanted to see all the evidence because it looked like she was going to show contrition for her horrible racism.
It was honorable that you did this, as I said at first. However, in light of the full speech, I see no contrition. I see a lot more racism in quantity, actually, just not this severe case I initially thought I saw (still pretty bad, though).
July 20th, 2010 | 11:12 pm | #65
That Obama sure is post-racial, isn’t he? What a uniter he is. Fact is, it feels like 1965 again.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:18 pm | #66
Anchoress: “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?”
Great coverage Elizabeth, but you dropped the ball here. I am surprised at this take away. Think Europe in the 30s and 40s. Think anti-semitism today.
“They just get into the habit of following along ….”
But if Ms Sharrod had such great insight … why wasn’t she leading the NAACP away? Based on her present comments about the NAACP starting a food fight with the tea parties, and her comments at the end of the tape, where does she really stand?
July 20th, 2010 | 11:20 pm | #67
One last point before I retire,
And I really really don’t want to come across as snarky or scornful of Anchoress just for asking for more evidence.
But if we’re complaining about shifting goalposts, and we’ve reviewed this NAACP video, why aren’t we still asking for the uncut video?
What did Sherrod say to elicit this loud laughter? It’s the loudest part of the video (at 21:01). It’s during the most controversial part of the speech, too. We still haven’t seen the full video.
Breitbart obviously had a much harder time getting the NAACP than NAACP did. Let’s hold them to, at minimum, the same standard we hold Breitbart’s claims to. They say Breitbart deceived. What evidence do they have?
It’s not OK to give the NAACP a pass because they are stuffed with racists and we just don’t expect much out of them anymore. In my respectful opinion.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:24 pm | #68
JAL, good catch.
“But I don’t blame Sherrod for going along with the group-think of the NAACP.”
Reconsider your tolerance for what is so hard to describe as something better than racial hatred. Blame her. Hold her accountable the same as you would hold, say, Andy Breitbart.
For far too long have we stopped short of blaming racists who aren’t white. We even pretend that’s ‘reverse’ racism instead of real racism. I think that’s a real problem in society. As patronizing as this sounds, I know someone as thoughtful as this blogger knows the folly of this forgiveness.
She needs to hold herself accountable and made that speech some thought this full video would show: blaming herself for her mistake of racism and being sorry for it.
I shouldn’t have to point this out, but the reason I need her to repent is because I want to forgive her.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:25 pm | #69
I am far more interested in whether Sherrod’s status as a recipients of a $13 million settlement from the USDA as part of Pigford v Vilsack, including a cool $150K apiece to her and her husband for pain and suffering, was in any way connected to her being appointed to that USDA job. I certainly suspect it was the reason she was thrown under the bus by the administration as soon as her name hit the media. Sherrod’s own history in Georgia seem to center more around community organising than producing cotton, peanuts, peaches, pecans and Vidalia onions. Adding to my suspicion is that Sherrod’s husband appears to have been a player in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. In a word, it all reeks worse than a big pile of pig poop.
There is ample circumstantial evidence that many claims filed in the $1.15 billion settlement under Pigford v Vilsack were bogus,. Instead of investigating the Democrat Congress in 2008 extended the period for filing additional claims as part of the so called Farm bill! With all the publicity about the stimuls that didn’t stimulate anything except Democrart interest groups, having the Pigford settlement in the news is more gasoline on the fire.
We certainly aren’t going to solve the problem of race relations as long as blacks can get a financial windfall by claiming discrimination. That is what the NAACP and other organizations of their ilk are about these days. Their largely middle to upper middle class members shake down the lily livered political class while doing nothing concrete to improve the day to day lives of poor blacks.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:37 pm | #70
People who are focusing on Sherrod are missing the bigger picture here. Regardless of the parts of the tape that Breitbart cut out, Sherrod was being cheered by the audience (who didn’t know where she was going with her speech) for doing despicable things: withholding full help from a guy simply because he was white, taking him to “his own” for help, and the whole moronic speech about how the guy was talking to her to let her know he was superior to her (you have to be kidding).
The bottom line is that, whether she’s racist or not the people in that room clearly were. Breitbart promised to show racism at the NAACP and he did. Whether that was Sherrod or not is up for grabs – but definitely her cheerleaders in the audience were.
It was unsettling to watch that.
[And if you watch the whole tape you see the same audience approving and applauding when she says "its not about black white or hispanic." So...what do you make of that? -admin]
July 20th, 2010 | 11:49 pm | #71
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.
Hear hear.
Good for you for the principled reaction.
There are too many sites where urging your side to live up to its rhetoric gets you labeled a troll.
Iirc there’s a passage in scripture regarding motes and beams and eyes.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:51 pm | #72
Far right and far left are more alike than they realize -admin]
>>>> Really? Try looking at exactly what each side is fighting for here.
July 20th, 2010 | 11:56 pm | #73
I’m one of the few black people I know who’s politically conservative. I’m sick and tired of hearing white conservatives smeared as racist and black conservatives smeared as Uncle Toms. But nothing I’ve seen in a long time has upset me quite as much as this story. I’m almost in tears writing this. Why? Because I know women like Ms. Sherrod. I go to church with ‘em. I don’t care about their politics. They’re such good, kind, sweet people.
As soon as I heard that first “damning” video, I had a bad feeling about it, because I know how black church ladies speak, and how they sometimes tell stories on themselves, stories intended to show how far they’ve come in learning how to do right and avoid wrong. Spend enough time in black Baptist churches, and you’ve heard this sort of thing, a lot. When that tape ended, just as she’d begun to talk about how her views began to change and she’d come to realize that she shouldn’t think in terms of race, I had a feeling that this lady had been terribly wronged.
Now that I’ve heard more of her remarks, I see my instinct was dead right.
This is damnable. Damnable. Everybody who touched this s&&t should be ashamed. The White House. The Department of Agriculture. The NAACP. And Breitbart. It’s an utterly disgusting performance from the lot of them. All so busy calculating the political angles that they were perfectly willing to ruin the life of a well-intentioned, harmless woman telling a story about herself. Don’t any of these people go to church?
July 21st, 2010 | 12:04 am | #74
Anchoress, you are too good for this world.
Sherrod was collaterally damaged; It happens.
Shame induced by ridicule is lethal to the Left.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:04 am | #75
“I see no-one wants to touch the Mark Williams story with a ten foot pole….”
That story has been all over the news and the blogs. To a lesser extent, but still something, has been the news that he was expelled from some larger Tea Party caucus. In fact I got an email from the latter group announcing his group had been expelled.
So your statement is a lie.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:22 am | #76
To quote Shakespeare, “All are punished”.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:26 am | #77
I hope the Anchoress is enjoying her role as a useful idiot.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:33 am | #78
So, I listened to the whole thing… one almost suspects the NAACP included this incredible amount of irrelevant matrerial as a lawerly tactic to drown out the relevant comments… or make people tune out out of boredom.
There is a VERY suspicious cut in the film, and I’m suprised you could mention your suspecions about Breitbart and not even see fit to mention this. Not once.
I do admit the NAACP edit adds something to the story that the first cut should have included for honesty reasons. That said, the original cut does nothing worse than journalists do every day when they want to tell a story… and often journalists do worse and those people who are screaming now were yawning then. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does put it into context (your definition, not mine).
But as I suspected… It doesn’t change the details. The person still did commit racist acts, even if she did the right thing eventually. The longer video shows her waving the bloody shirt for the first 15 minutes and then speecifying about how all those republicans are racist.
And though she mouths pretty words about it really about being poor people, when it comes time to talk about “helping each other out”, magically its all about race again, not poverty.
So, it’s much less convincing when you see the whole thing, but if you actually pay attention you see a clear racist perspective that would be unacceptable in a white person. You don’t have to try and read her mind and pretend you know WHY some senator would say he wished some other senator won a race: You just have to be able to understand basic english and know what exact would happen to a white person if they said they sent a black “back to her own kind” so they could help them.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:39 am | #79
“When that tape ended, just as she’d begun to talk about how her views began to change and she’d come to realize that she shouldn’t think in terms of race, I had a feeling that this lady had been terribly wronged.”
So how did you feel when she went right back to talking about race about 5 minutes after?
July 21st, 2010 | 1:08 am | #80
I do not understand the comments on here wanting to spread the blame around for this situation. Who posted the misleading video?
Who plucked this woman out of obscurity to make a point about supposed black racism? Who is utterly responsible for this whole mess?
Andrew Breitbart.
[And what was Breitbart responding to, can you remember? Shirley Sherrod knows...oh, yeah...the NAACP insisting on playing an unnecessary round of race-tinged political theater! -admin]
July 21st, 2010 | 2:03 am | #81
[...] Elizabeth puts it all into context, while providing the mother of all link-fests. So you’ll want to go to her place first, and read the whole thing. [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 2:19 am | #82
I’m sorry, but I don’t know if I consider it clear that Ms. Sherrod should get her job back.
While it is clear that the edited version of the video takes her comments out of context, I don’t think it’s so clear that Ms. Sherrod doesn’t still view people in terms of race (not that she shouldn’t, what she’s lived through was absolutely awful).
Maybe I’m just being an idealist, but somehow it strikes me as wrong that a government official should still be describing people as “your own” or “their own.” Ms. Scalia mentions that it’s time for people of good will to stop tolerating politically expedient charges of racism. I don’t know how else you would characterize Ms. Sherrod’s attack on the health care bill opponents.
July 21st, 2010 | 2:30 am | #83
Maybe those Black Panther tapes about killing white babies were also edited by some evil right winger. We should ask the Panthers to release the full tape so that we have not jumped the gun. He might have been talking about those white babies from the movie “Children of the Damned”. After all, those little suckers were hardcore!
This whole spat was started with unfounded allegations started by the left. They want us to condemn and turn on each other, just as some have on the Tea Party Express. Why because Mark Williams attempts at satire truly suck! Sorry, this is a war boys and girls and we can not point our guns back towards our own lines and expect to win. Face your enemy!
July 21st, 2010 | 3:14 am | #84
What disturbs me the most is the freedom she has to talk about people in terms of their race – white lawyers, white farmers, black lawyers, black farmers. The dominant culture has been taught that this is wrong. My first gut reaction is that she is allowed to talk in ways that most people can not.
July 21st, 2010 | 3:18 am | #85
[...] before rendering judgment on USDA official Shirley Sherrod before passing judgment. Once again, she 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. [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 3:40 am | #86
Seriously, change everyone black to white and everyone white to black. A white government official at a tea party rally talking about sending a black to one of their own and only doing what the law required, being cheered by a white crowd. The white person taking about not helping a black as much as they help whites. If the talk was interspersed with conservative principles as this one was with liberal principles, it would be all over.
Then try to imagine any talk about the context. It is unimaginable and anyone asking for the context would be labeled a racist as well.
It would be gracious to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I would love it if everyone’s words were interpreted charitably. But while the NAACP is calling other people racist without any evidence, and every word spoken by conservatives is viewed in the worst possible light and twisted to show racist intent where none exists, it is valuable and necessary to point out the hypocrisy.
Again, there would be absolutely no discussion of context if these remarks were spoken by a white conservative about blacks he was supposed to be helping on behalf of the government.
July 21st, 2010 | 3:51 am | #87
I’m sorry, but your reach for “fairness” is simply a lack of moral clarity:
1. An official of the government admits discriminating against a farmer for the crime of being “superior” (i.e., “uppity”). This is an indefensible crime that deserves immediate termination regardless of when it happened, not a ‘teachable moment’ or merely an opportunity for personal reflection, epiphany, growth, or redemption.
2. The official obviously believed that her audience would be amused by this tale. As the video shows, she was correct: the audience applauded at all the ‘wrong’ parts. So at best, she’s not a racist, but she plays one for the race-baiting bigots in the NAACP. Again, a point for Andrew Breitbart.
3. The NAACP reacted defensively, condemning her before reviewing the tape they filmed and had in their possession. Is there a more enlightening or pithy illustration of a group that regularly trades in political correctness to commit life altering injustices via casual slander and premature charges of racism?
4. Not so fast with the Spooner defense: Are the Spooners the first and only white farmers she ever dealt with? (Highly unlikely). What basis is there to assume that they are the family of the story, since Mrs. Spooner claims she was not referred to “one of their own” for legal counseling and ostensibly DID keep her farm? Even if the Spooners were the family, what basis is there to assume that this couple were the only “uppity” white farmers she helped steer into oblivion, given her own admission of racial bias and her position of authority?
So, did Breitbart’s video excerpt lie by revealing her to be a racist who pandered to race hustlers and who abused her power, destroying the livelihoods of people she was charged to help? (a dubious duty, but a duty none the less)
Is it now a lie of omission to not reveal supposedly “exculpatory” evidence of personal growth and redemption, regardless of the real world damage she left in her wake? Isn’t that exactly the sort of postmodern intent vs. consequences rubbish you regularly & rightfully condemn? Haven’t you simply served up fodder for the amoral Alinskyites on the left with what appears to be a premature condemnation of Breitbart?
Churchill’s observation that “I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad” rings true here.
July 21st, 2010 | 4:34 am | #88
>Sherrod was collaterally damaged; It happens.
Really? A person about which you know next to nothing, except that she dared to express impolitic ideas before a group of people, she is nothing more than collateral damage?
Personally, I find it highly discomfiting that select portions of the conservative new media have begun quoting Alinsky at me in their blog posts. I understand, the idea is to fight fire with fire. But one of the reasons I chose to leave the left was precisely or this type of thing. I am not particularly eager to be part of any movement that wants to out-Alinsky anyone. In a world of Alinsky disciples, there is no justice, and there is very little humanity. And there is certainly no objective truth.
Was A. B. being dishonest with this clip? No, I don’t think so. But he had to feed the news cycles, he had to “punch back”. Ok, that’s the role he has appointed himself to, so have fun. But in the meantime, a woman has lost her job, her livelihood. She is not merely collateral damage, but is a living, breathing person. She is not merely the detritus spit out of the sharp gears of the American political machine (in all of its current dehumanizing glory!) – she has a name, and bleeds when cut, and probably has dreams, too. Is she imperfect. Why, yes, she is. Do I like her politics? No, I do not. But at some point we either must decide that our humanity transcends political identification or get busy shooting at one another.
I become as frustrated as anyone when I read the Journolist emails. I find the tactics advocated for so long by the left repugnant beyond my ability to describe them. This video, and the manner in which it was introduced, does not quite rise to that level, but it treads awfully close.
Of course, as someone said earlier, politics ain’t beanbag. But I also do not believe it should be a blood sport, where the lives of those so “collaterally” damaged (as cynical characterization as I have heard in quite a while) are but toys in a vicious playground lorded over by those with the biggest sticks. Or the loudest megaphones.
July 21st, 2010 | 5:08 am | #89
With the fall of the Twin Towers came the rise of a blogosphere able to convey stories and opinions far faster and with more liberty than the now rotted ‘corps’ that was old media.
Unfortunately, this new found power has also afforded the immediate the ability to jump to judgment – and worse – an anonymity that makes it easy to gleefully demand the destruction of another without thought to the other individual’s life and livelihood.
Such was the case last month with Delair Ali at Research 2000, whose numbers were taken out of context by “online experts” cherry-picking select tidbits.
So now too Ms. Sherrod, whose story of racial repentance is lost to an online lynch mob not even patient enough to wait ‘for the rest of the story.’
I was glad to read your “not so fast” post yesterday. It gives me hope that this ‘Army of Davids’ won’t simply devolve into the crowd at the Colosseum demanding a daily dose of blood to sate their political appetites.
So thanks so much for preaching some patience and demanding the decency of having all the facts before rushing to judgment.
July 21st, 2010 | 5:19 am | #90
For those who are demanding that we denounce X, Y & Z. Perhaps you should stage an official Will You Condemn-A-Thon?
July 21st, 2010 | 6:33 am | #91
I am comming late to the party, am currently overseas on vacation and several hours ahead. So have to read blogs a day later.
Not always good at writting, so my points may be a little jumbled.
First, Breitbart never ever said that this video was about Sherrod, it was only about racism coming from the NAACP. All in respone of their “resoultion” claiming that the Tea Party was racist (without any proof). Well, I think he accomplished his task. Unfortunatly, everyone is focusing on Sherrod, which was not Breitbart’s goal.
“[And if you watch the whole tape you see the same audience approving and applauding when she says “its not about black white or hispanic.” So…what do you make of that?” I tell you what I make of that, it’s called a “Thinking Error.” Criminals do that all the time to justify their behavior. They perform the bad act, then do something good and when called on the bad act, they say “well but I did something good.” As a way to justify or delflect from the bad act. So what they applauded when she said that, they also agreed with her when she was telling about her racial bias against the white farmer. Just like Breitbart said, when the audience was in agreement with her racial bias, she sure didn’t try immediately to say that it wasn’t about black or white, she kept going with her racist comments.
There are also some things that still don’t add up, the video the NAACP released is edited (so no one has seen the full video). Second, how on earth do we know that the “farmer’s wife” that CNN spoke to is actually the real deal?? Sherrod claims that the farmer is dead, but when she was on with CNN and they had the farmer’s wife, the wife said he was still alive.
Would it be nice if the race issue would not be the tip of the left’s spear when there are disagreements on policy issues, yep. But until the Dems and the NAACP kept flinging it around willy nilly, then people like Breitbart need to keep exposing those on the left. Maybe then it will be not as politically expedient.
July 21st, 2010 | 7:35 am | #92
“But you guys keep saying he lied about something… and nothing he said ever gets debunked.”
What else is expected when coming from the mouths of those who belong to a man-made organization which piously ‘claims’ they are about protecting the ‘Sanctity of Life’ while empowering The Party of Infanticide and Euthanasia.
They must lie about their morality otherwise they’ll lose their access to government’s silvered-entitlement go-gooders coins representing their ‘charitable’ hearts.
July 21st, 2010 | 7:45 am | #93
Jesme,
Thank you for your honest words. All too many of the screamers seem willing to sacrifice human beings to advance their own agenda. I don’t know what brought Ms Sherrod to the original racist views she expressed, and I sure don’t know where her heart lies now. I can disagree with or disapprove of her views and debate them rather fiercely, but I don’t know and can’t judge her. It’s pretty easy to pretend you don’t sin when you’ve learned the PC game, but it’s really hard to be as good as we would like to be.
July 21st, 2010 | 7:49 am | #94
It was an awful, awful thing. And it was purposeful.
July 21st, 2010 | 8:01 am | #95
Sherrod admitted to professional misconduct based on race. For that reason alone, she should be fired. Or is racist malfeasance OK now?
If Sherrod was fired without the whole tape being reviewed, those doing the sacking should be sacked.
[24 years ago, and she made her admission as part of a larger talk against such racist ideas. Boy, I'd hate to see my mistakes from 24 years ago come out of no where to bite me in the ass. -admin]
July 21st, 2010 | 8:59 am | #96
[...] the point about wider context presciently made yesterday by the Anchoress. Here’s what she offers previous post, it’s true that the Spooners have been adamant that Sherrod worked tirelessly on their behalf. As [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 9:51 am | #97
I agree with a lot of your points, but Sherrod does not get off the hook in my book.
First, how do we know that the family that is backing her up is actually the one she is talking about? We don’t. We just have a bunch of people making unsubstantiated claims to cover for each other.
Second, Sherrod admits that she decided this guy needed MORE help than she was WILLING to give, so she sent him to “his people.” Wow. Imagine a white doctor or a white lawyer making a claim like this. She acted in a racially biased manner while she was in a position of authority. If she were a Republican, despite this so called “tale of redemption,” calls would be made to investigate EVERY case she every worked on in order to detect a pattern of invidious discrimination.
Finally, so what if it was “24 years ago?” Strom Thurmond never got a pass, even when he mellowed on race issues. George Allen was railroaded for uttering the word “macaca,” which is not a pejorative in this country. Catholic priests have to defend against allegations of alleged sexual misconduct that may have occurred 50 years ago, and statutes of limitation are waived when it comes to claims against them. In the case of Sherrod, we have a woman who ADMITTED that she engaged in invidious racial discrimination, yet we are supposed to give her a pass because it happened 24 years ago, and she’s allegedly seen the light.
I don’t think so.
July 21st, 2010 | 9:53 am | #98
Anchoress,
Speaking of irony, do you realize that “Sister Toldjah” is a rabidly anti-Catholic bigot?
[That only tells me she doesn't understand Catholicism. Why are you telling me this? Am I supposed to now exclude her from any and all considerations? If she is a bigot (which I do not know for a fact) her mistakes will say more about her than me or the church. I'm getting really tired of the "this person said that, and so she/he must forever be shunned" mentality that has saturated our nation. It doesn't belong in our faith. -admin]
July 21st, 2010 | 10:06 am | #99
the proof
July 21st, 2010 | 10:08 am | #100
I agree with Bill. Obama was right to fire her.
In a public venue she admitted to screwing someone because she didn’t like the fact he had white skin. The fact she later attempted to rectify her racism with this particular client doesn’t address everyone she had the opportunity to wrong earlier. Or, the people who didn’t meet her own individual criteria for her performing her job later. What about the people she decided were just a tad too rich to meet her own personal requirements no matter what the rules are?
Nope. Maybe for the first time ever, Obama did the right thing.
Regards.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:20 am | #101
There’s a couple of reverse racist dirty hippies for you.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:26 am | #102
Breitbart took her video out of context, yes. And as much as I’m sympathetic to her individual case, and as much as she probably shouldn’t have been fired, I will hold my tongue.
Until the Left appoints Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. And Miguel Estrada. And they apologize to Clarence Thomas in a public and personally HUMILIATING way. And after they take meaningful steps to repudiate the BushHitler meme. After they atone for what they did to Condi Rice.
My point? There are certain elements in society (Nazis, Communists, the Klan, Progressives) that will NEVER willingly relinquish power. They cannot be reasoned with. One cannot persuade them that your poltical opposition is legitimate and should be respected. The only thing they understand or respect is raw, unadulterated power. If they don’t like dying by their own sword, they shouldn’t pick up the sword in the first place.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:31 am | #103
I don’t think it’s so clear that Ms. Sherrod doesn’t still view people in terms of race (not that she shouldn’t, what she’s lived through was absolutely awful).
There is a point where she seems to be leading up to saying that she doesn’t, that she learned that it is about the poor instead, but then she stops short and expressly says, “it IS about white and black,” with Sherrod herself emphasizing the “is.”
Moreover, 24 years later, she still is quick to accuse this white farmer of having racist attitudes himself (showing himself to be “superior,” which, even if he was, it is just as likely that he was acting superior because he was a private citizen and she was the Government, who was supposed to be there to serve, and not simply that she was black). And she still is quick to tar Republicans and anyone who opposes Obama as being racist.
No, if we hold her to the same standards on race that she applies to others — she is racist. If we hold her to a more reasonable standard of objectivity, she is overly race conscious, seeing too many things in terms of race, “it IS about white and black.”
And beyond race, the full tape clearly convicts her of formenting class warfare. The lesson she learned is NOT one of unity, NOT one of peace on earth, but still thinking in terms of us-versus-them. The full tape is still divisive, still advocates hostility and resentment.
Given her family history, should she be forgiven for thinking this way? Perhaps — as a private citizen. As a private citizen she can think whatever the hell she wants. But as a government official, no such thinking cannot be tolerated.
————-
Now, there is a new aspect to this story, one not yet commented on here and that is Sherrod’s clear conflict of interest in her position at USDA.
Sherrod joined in a class action lawsuit by minority farmers against USDA and the organization that she founded received a $13 million settlement in that case. That settlement for Sherrod and her group “New Communities” occurred only a short time before she was appointed to the USDA position. Although her aspect reached a settlement, the main case is still on-going.
I would like to know more about this case, and Sherrod’s involvement, and anything that she said about race in the course of that case.
In any event, this is a conflict of interest, with a demonstrated bias favoring minority farmers, which disqualifies her from the USDA position.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:32 am | #104
Lizzie,
Thanks for being a grown-up about this whole business. There’s darned few grown-ups left in the world.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:42 am | #105
The lawsuit at issue is Pigford v. Vilsack. And questions have been raised as to the legitimacy of many of the claims.
If they were too quick to ask her to resign, and if SHE was too quick to resign, let’s not be too quick saying that she should be reinstated. Let’s not compound one less-than-fully-informed action with another uninformed action. Let’s get ALL the facts. Let’s get all the facts before reinstating her, especially when it looks like she never should have been appointed in the first place.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:48 am | #106
Thank you, Bender. The notion among conservatives that we owe this woman a job doling out taxpayer money is ludicrous.
July 21st, 2010 | 10:50 am | #107
[...] brings us to the video. There’s a certain amount of rethink going on, because there’s enough context (even in the edited video) to see that Sherrod had [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 10:53 am | #108
The NAACP has demonstrated that they spit on the legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and embrace the legacy of the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X.
I wonder if they read the “I Have a Dream” speech again, the whole thing, the NAACP leadership would see how far they’ve strayed from the ideals King expressed so beautifully in 1963. Unlikely. These “leaders” seem content with being tools of the Democrat Party.
Palmtree claims that racist comments on conservative blogs and forums prove conservative racism. Were I to find racist comments about Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas on the archives of lefty blogs, would I therefore prove that liberals are racists?
July 21st, 2010 | 10:56 am | #109
If she were still in her position and went to a farm where a Tea Party banner was flying and a “down with ObamaCare” bumper sticker was on the tractor and the white farmer was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio and he had the attitude of expecting her to provide assistance –
Would she deal with that person fairly? Based on the full tape, does anyone think that she would deal fairly with that person? Or would she be quick to call him racist and be resentful?
July 21st, 2010 | 11:15 am | #110
[...] defamed. Here's Glenn Beck. Here's Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. Here's Instapundit. Here's the popular Anchoress blog at First Things. Even the racially incendiary Eric Erickson tweeted his disquiet, and then posted [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 11:29 am | #111
“…Boy, I’d hate to see my mistakes from 24 years ago come out of no where to bite me in the ass.”
By any chance were you a duly authorized government official who took an oath to uphold the constitution 24 years ago?
Your condemnation of Breitbart was premature, an act of misplaced compassion for the people he highlighted so well.
1. Last I checked remorse as a defense for lawbreaking only works in the movies.
2. She was a racist that used unlawful criteria for denying benefits that taxpayers were entitled to receive. (The benefit should never have existed, but he was entitled to it at the time)
3. The crowd is clearly racist, and now it is apparent that Mr. Jealous himself (what an appropriate name) was apparently in the crowd, yet somehow he did not manage to jump to his feet to denounce his fellow racists.
The NAACP was right to condemn, not the speech, but the underlying official act which inspired it, and more importantly, the “disturbing” reaction of the crowd.
The President was right to relieve her of her position. We have too many officials (Geitner springs to mind) that can flout the law by saying “gee, my bad”. Try that as a common citizen in front of a judge and see where it gets you.
July 21st, 2010 | 11:33 am | #112
I’d like to point out that some people’s reliance on watching “the whole tape” is misplaced – even the fuller version of the tape is edited. Makes me wonder what they are leaving out.
[The "edit" is a tape change, and that is quite believable since it occurs in almost the exact middle of the video. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. -admin]
July 21st, 2010 | 11:52 am | #113
[...] The Anchoress [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 11:58 am | #114
[...] the NAACP had to do was wait a day and they could have baited conservatives (with the exception of the anchoress of course) would have fallen for it. They KNEW the truth. They knew Sherrod didn’t deserve to [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #115
[...] eye — leading the charge. In the middle, calmer voices like War Correspondent The Anchoress, who argued for a measured approach. On the left, do-as-you’re-told foot soldiers of the big-government, nanny-state army, [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #116
Mark M: By any chance were you a duly authorized government official who took an oath to uphold the constitution 24 years ago?
Twenty-four years ago, Sherrod worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative Land Assistance Fund, “Fighting To Save Black-Owned Land Since 1967 With Cooperatives.”
Mark M: 1. Last I checked remorse as a defense for lawbreaking only works in the movies. </i
She didn't break any laws, but went far beyond reasonable expectation to help.
Mark: 2. She was a racist that used unlawful criteria for denying benefits that taxpayers were entitled to receive.
She never denied anyone anything, and worked very hard to help the farmer save his farm. She admits to having a problem with race (CNN is reporting that her father was killed by a racist, but never charged). But her story is one of overcoming the barriers between people.
Mark M: 3. The crowd is clearly racist
The crowd is exhibiting racial consciousness, not racism. They know where she’s coming from. It’s a story of redemption and of overcoming deep-rooted divisions.
July 21st, 2010 | 12:25 pm | #117
[...] eye — leading the charge. In the middle, calmer voices like War Correspondent The Anchoress, who argued for a measured approach. On the left, do-as-you’re-told foot soldiers of the big-government, nanny-state army, [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #118
Perhaps, Bender, this hypothetical farmer could met & become good pals with David Jungerman?
July 21st, 2010 | 12:51 pm | #119
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.
July 21st, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #120
“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]
July 21st, 2010 | 1:18 pm | #121
[...] out she and many others were exactly correct. Ms Sherrod was telling that audience about her journey. It was confession and testimony ending in gospel. Yes [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #122
Teachable Moments: Things learned/reaffirmed from the Sherrod/Breitbart controversy…
A random list of things we’ve learned/reaffirmed in the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod/Andrew Breitbart controversy (inspired by Jonah Goldberg): — Context is everything. — If you’re a big time conservative media guy/gal, make…
July 21st, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #123
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!