The Shirley Sherrod Situation

[Primula Baggins]

I have been a government employee and it would have been utterly absurd, far beyond ridiculous, to call me (a 22-year-old Lab Technician I for the state of California) a public figure. It is laughable to claim that government employees are, by virtue of being government employees, public figures. It would certainly have astonished the nurses' aides and janitors and food service workers at the VA hospital where I worked.

[River]

Shirley Sherrod is a victim, but one who has shown how someone can rise above her victimization. She grew up in the segregated South. When she was 17, her father was murdered by a white man in a racially motivated incident. There were three eyewitnesses, but nonetheless the grand jury refused to indict the suspect. It was that backdrop that she brought with her that led her to the place where she was initially unwilling to give her full effort to the white farmers that came to her 24 years ago. But it was her realization that by allowing her own racial history to influence her own actions she was simply perpetuating racial disharmony, and it was her ability to rise above that history that makes her a valuable example.

Also, at the time the white farmers came to her for help in having their farm saved, she and several other black farmers were losing their land because the USDA officials in Georgia hadn't understood the whole thing about not discriminating based on skin color and were obstructing or allowing the obstruction of loans to black farmers, thus making it difficult for them to do things like buy seed (the lawsuit has since been won by the farmers). It would be tough for anyone under such circumstances to show compassion and yet she managed. And then went on to get a job with the USDA...

I think it really says something that the white farmers she supposedly discriminated against spoke up in her defense. She ultimately saved their farm.

Beyond that, this whole fiasco is both sad and amusing at the same time. The NAACP called the Tea Party out for racist elements within the Tea Party. In return, a conservative blogger tried to dig up dirt onthe NAACP and the best they could do was basically a fabrication. Not only was did Sherrod do her job and do it well on behalf of these white people she supposedly hates, she wasn't even a USDA employee when the incident she spoke of occurred. But the USDA was so freaked out over its own history, and the government in general so freaked out over racial issues, that she was fired before the truth could come out. In fact, that supposedly racist organization called the NAACP condemned her before the truth could come out.

If I were her, I'd be a bit annoyed. Scratch that. I'd be bloody furious and utterly devastated. If she's opted not to take her job back I'd understand completely (I've been out of the loop since Friday morning so if she's going back to the USDA I wouldn't know). If she does take that job back she's a much better person than I am. Seriously. I'd probably contemplate blowing up a few buildings if something like that happened to me. Not that it ever would. But still...yeesh.

Anyway, this whole thing has sent some powerful messages about the sort of tactics the right-wing blogosphere will resort to to "prove" a point and the sort of response the Executive Branch of the US government will make to even the mere suggestion that an official has a racial bias. Hopefully the feds have learned an important lesson. Just in case guys like Breitbart try this again. Though their credibility should be shot to hell. Not that it is - there are always some people would rather believe half-truths and lies because to them the dishonesty somehow feels more true than the actual truth. But it should be.

[Primula Baggins]

Breitbart should have lost all credibility over the ACORN "recordings," which were proven to have been doctored and partially faked. But it seems that sometimes (IMO), if you serve the right-wing agenda, you become invulnerable to any charge of twisting the truth; pointing out that someone is simply wrong in terms of provable fact is being "partisan" and "divisive," whereas accepting the wrong assertions as true or "containing an essential truth" is being open-minded.

[axordil]

The EFF's definition is idiosyncratic, extremely broad, and not legally binding. One could interpret it to include anyone who puts a yard sign for a political candidate or issue up.

just like the clip Breitbart posted did

Which version?

After poking around, I think I may agree with John Dean's analysis: suing someone like Breitbart, who has limited personal funds and demonstrably scant scruples, may be more trouble than it's worth, given the standards for false light suits in this country. She'd be better off getting revenge the old fashioned way: living well, writing a book, and counting on the judgment of history.

[halplm]

Breitbart should have lost all credibility over the ACORN "recordings," which were proven to have been doctored and partially faked. But it seems that sometimes (IMO), if you serve the right-wing agenda, you become invulnerable to any charge of twisting the truth; pointing out that someone is simply wrong in terms of provable fact is being "partisan" and "divisive," whereas accepting the wrong assertions as true or "containing an essential truth" is being open-minded.

Everything about this statement is incorrect. But it is hard to argue when someone asserts falsehoods as facts...

Well, I thought it was worth trying to discuss this, but you can't really discuss racism with someone who denies that it exists—or believes that it only exists against white people. And that a black woman who has achieved anything could only have done so because of her race—that she can't possibly be competent—this is not racism?

I never said she wasn't competent, nor did I say anything about only being capable of achieving because of race. I did not say racism does not exist or that it was only against white people. Since everything you are saying is incorrect... yes, it is hard to discuss anything.

Next time you accuse someone of claiming victimization out of a sense of entitlement, you might want to study the mirror first.

Oh, what exactly have I claimed? Or are you attempting to twist this "discussion" to me, rather than what I say...

Oh, and passing off the uninvestigated, unpunished murder of someone's father as having happened "a long time ago," as if his daughter has no right still to be hurt by it and is promoting racism by mentioning it, is pretty darn callous, Hal.

And I think it's pretty darn divisive to continuously dredge up examples of past racist acts to incite racial anger and activism.

[N.E. Brigand]

"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy. It seems to me our mission to escort the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council to a peace summit is problematic at best. Spock says this could be an historic occasion, and I'd like to believe him. But how on Earth can history get past people like me?"


Eventually Kirk overcomes his prejudices. Should William Shatner play Sherrod in the film version of these events?

[halplm]

"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy. It seems to me our mission to escort the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council to a peace summit is problematic at best. Spock says this could be an historic occasion, and I'd like to believe him. But how on Earth can history get past people like me?"


Eventually Kirk overcomes his prejudices. Should William Shatner play Sherrod in the film version of these events?

She'd have to overcome her prejudices first.

It's interesting that she was not interviewed once on any of the Sunday Morning Talk shows... What was she going to say?

[River]

"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy. It seems to me our mission to escort the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council to a peace summit is problematic at best. Spock says this could be an historic occasion, and I'd like to believe him. But how on Earth can history get past people like me?"


Eventually Kirk overcomes his prejudices. Should William Shatner play Sherrod in the film version of these events?

She'd have to overcome her prejudices first.

Um, I think you missed the point of her speech...

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, you do miss several points, but one I have to respond to: the idea that a woman mentioning the murder of her own father is "dredg[ing] up examples of past racist acts to incite racial anger and activism."

Is it remotely possible she loved her father and mourns for him as any human being would do? Is inciting racial anger the only reason a woman who lost her father at the age of seventeen would mention his death?

Especially in the context of the speech she gave, which had exactly the opposite purpose.

And is it irrelevant to say that his murder was a racist act, when it was? No one was ever indicted, let alone tried, for the murder, even though there were three eyewitnesses, so it is not a closed book.

And:

I never said she wasn't competent, nor did I say anything about only being capable of achieving because of race.

She has been given every opportunity to succeed, and has been massively helped entirely because of her race

Doesn't leave a lot of room for the presumption of any competence.

[halplm]

"I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy. It seems to me our mission to escort the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council to a peace summit is problematic at best. Spock says this could be an historic occasion, and I'd like to believe him. But how on Earth can history get past people like me?"


Eventually Kirk overcomes his prejudices. Should William Shatner play Sherrod in the film version of these events?

She'd have to overcome her prejudices first.

Um, I think you missed the point of her speech...

I think you missed her speech, and her comments since then. One part of her speech addressed her twisting of straight up racism into class-based racism, which I suppose is one small step in the right direction, although it's more of a side-step.

[Primula Baggins]

What's "class-based racism"?

[halplm]

Hal, you do miss several points, but one I have to respond to: the idea that a woman mentioning the murder of her own father is "dredg[ing] up examples of past racist acts to incite racial anger and activism."

Is it remotely possible she loved her father and mourns for him as any human being would do? Is inciting racial anger the only reason a woman who lost her father at the age of seventeen would mention his death?

It's not about her mentioning it. It's about how that becomes the main point of everyone out to grant her super-status.

Especially in the context of the speech she gave, which had exactly the opposite purpose.

I disagree. You are editing her speech far more than was done by Breitbart.

And is it irrelevant to say that his murder was a racist act, when it was? No one was ever indicted, let alone tried, for the murder, even though there were three eyewitnesses, so it is not a closed book.

How is it relevant... to prove racism existed? I may be wrong, but I don't think that's in dispute.

It is far more relevant to investigate racist acts occurring NOW... which only happens if the Justice department doesn't like your politics.

And:

I never said she wasn't competent, nor did I say anything about only being capable of achieving because of race.

She has been given every opportunity to succeed, and has been massively helped entirely because of her race

Doesn't leave a lot of room for the presumption of any competence.

I don't presume any competence or lack thereof. If you do, that's your business, but that was not my statement.

[halplm]

What's "class-based racism"?

When you hate non-poor white people... as one example.

[N.E. Brigand]

For reference, here is a transcript of Sherrod's speech, for reference.

The point of the speech is basically summarized in this paragraph:

But where am I going with this? You know, I couldn't say 45 years ago -- I couldn't stand here and say what I'm saying -- what I will say to you tonight. Like I told you, God helped me to see that it's not just about black people -- it's about poor people. And I've come a long way. I knew that I couldn't live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, "If we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we'd probably be dead now."

I can't find the part where Sherrod expresses hatred for rich and middle-class whites.

[Primula Baggins]

"Hate"? Where did she say she hates rich people, white or not?

I juast reread the whole transcript and it's not there.

[halplm]

For reference, here is a transcript of Sherrod's speech, for reference.

The point of the speech is basically summarized in this paragraph:

But where am I going with this? You know, I couldn't say 45 years ago -- I couldn't stand here and say what I'm saying -- what I will say to you tonight. Like I told you, God helped me to see that it's not just about black people -- it's about poor people. And I've come a long way. I knew that I couldn't live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, "If we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we'd probably be dead now."

I can't find the part where Sherrod expresses hatred for rich and middle-class whites.

that is not a summary of her speech at all. It is a quote from the speech.

Do you maintain that we can read one quote from one speech and know everything about someone?

[Primula Baggins]

No, but we (and you) can read the entire speech and know what is (and what is not) in the entire speech.

If you have some basis (a quote from another source, say) for knowing Shirley Sherrod hates white middle-class and rich people, please post the link.

If you're only saying she has to be wrong because you don't like what she says, please say so.

[halplm]

"Hate"? Where did she say she hates rich people, white or not?

I juast reread the whole transcript and it's not there.

racism is about hate. I am not basing my opinion of her only on her speech. What she has said since then is far more enlightening.

When you write a speech (I'm assuming she wrote it herself), you build a narrative that supports your positions. It is carefully crafted to only sound good.

It is far easier to understand what someone thinks when in an interview setting.

It's ironic, everyone that defends her is editing down her entire speech to that one quote... which is FAR more editing than the original video that started the whole thing.

[Primula Baggins]

It's not "editing" when you excerpt something while providing a link to the complete document, Hal. You or anyone else is free to go to the complete document and find excerpts proving your own points, if they are there.

You are also free (as I've mentioned many, many times to you) to provide links to the things you allege. "What she has said since then is far more enlightening." Which things, where? This story is being heavily covered and you should be able to find links to the statements you're thinking of in a moment's work on Google.

Unless there aren't any, of course—which, in the absence of links, it's reasonable to assume.

[halplm]

No, but we (and you) can read the entire speech and know what is (and what is not) in the entire speech.

See comments above on limiting yourself to said speech.

If you have some basis (a quote from another source, say) for knowing Shirley Sherrod hates white middle-class and rich people, please post the link.

It's not surprising how hard it is to find racist coming out and saying they hate people. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from labeling someone (or entire groups of people) as racist. Of course labeling someone doesn't make it so. Personally, I find it much more important to focus on what people say and do rather than what they believe.

She's free to be as racist as she likes, but that's not really the point of any of this (and I find the digression into "what label exactly is hal trying to put on her, and how do we define it so we're safe in dismissing his opinion" to be sad). The point is the rush to anoint her as a post-racial genius that has been abused by the big bad conservatives which makes them evil.

Personally I don't think it's wise to anoint a racist into such a position, which is why it was brought up. But we're already seeing that I'm right, which is why she's getting no air time any more. Someone decided she was hurting their politics more than helping, and shut her up.

If you're only saying she has to be wrong because you don't like what she says, please say so.

I am not. She doesn't "have to be wrong." She is very wrong on some things (like saying Andrew Brietbart wants us to go back to the days of slavery, for example).