Concerning the pendulum swing about Shirley Sherrod

Andy McCarthy (on NRO): Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism

...
Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

With an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy assuming overlord status in what used to be private industry and private matters, are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat's disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people ... most of whom - like successful black people - worked very hard to become successful? Are we supposed to forget that when the Left says, "It's always about the money," you don't have to have a whole lot of money to find yourself on the wrong side of their have/have-not equation? Are we supposed to take comfort in having our affairs managed by bureaucrats who see the country as a Manichean divide beset by institutionalized racism?

Exactly: "are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat's disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people ... most of whom - like successful black people - worked very hard to become successful?"

Or, as I said a couple of days ago:

I heartily agree. [with this post by Neo-neocon]

And yet … were Miss Sherrod white and conservative, would there *ever* be forgiveness for her admission that she had realized that she herself had harbored racist attitudes? Would the fact that she had overcome them, or had at least set them aside in performing her duties, ever give her absolution for the fact of having had the thoughts in the first place?

To ask those questions is to answer them, is it not? Especially had she been an eeeeeevil white heterosexual man.

Of course, if she were conservative, she’d not have traded in an incipient racist attitude for an implicitly, much less explicitly, classist one.

Edit (2010-07-26a):
As is typical, far too many people are allowing the "liberals" to (re)frame the issue as being that "that horrible, terrible, conservative meanie, Breitbart, has unjustly launched a personal attack on poor, innocent, "progressive" Shirley Sherrod."

As far as I can gather, this is Breitbart’s first post on the matter -- and it is being misrepresented by nearly everyone.

The truth is, the full tape doesn’t really do Miss Sherrod any favors. She “got past black vs. white” by deciding that *some* whites are OK … if they’re poor enough.

And, in fact, that is clear even in the edited tape -- in Miss Sherrod's own words, "... So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him. That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have. And not so much about white ... it *is* about white and black ... but it's not, you know ... it opened my eyes. Because I took him to own of his own." [That's where the edited tape of her speech, as available on the above linked page, ends. As I understand it, the "one of his own" was that white lawyer she had mentioned ... who then proceded to screw over the white farmer.]


Some, on the conservative side, are "defending" Breitbart on the dubous grounds that "he got played." There are at least two problems with that move:
1) it accepts the false "liberal" reframing of the issue;
2) it is at best, lame, and in truth closer to intellectual dishonesty. -- One has a duty to ensure that one’s statements on matters such as this reflect reality and do not misrepresent the other person or organization.

But, in truth, Breitbart has nothing to apologize for. WHY is it that almost no one can see that we are still being played by the “liberals” on this? WHY is it that almost no one can see that the “liberals” have chaged the subject … and everyone is letting them get away with that distraction? Once again.


Here is an article I read (courtessy of Bob Parks), discussing further developments ... yet still seeming to miss the truth that we are all being spun by the "liberals" to see this as "that horrible, terrible, conservative meanie, Breitbart, has unjustly launched a personal attack on poor, innocent, "progressive" Shirley Sherrod." -- Jeffrey Lord (The American Spectator): Sherrod Story False


Edit (2010-07-26b):
Lawrence Auster: Sherrod's Profits (especially attend the comment by 'Thucydides')


Edit (2010-07-27):
Jay Tea: Rushing To Judgment

Though, it cannot be emphasized enough: the full video does not actually show her to have put her race-hatred behind her. Rather (and this is clear even in the edited clip), she transferred her hatred from all whites to those she perceives as "rich."

How much you want to bet that "evil rich whites" who deserve to be hated includes all conservatives, including "Uncle Toms?"


Edit (2010-07-28):
Tony Blankley (on NRO) pens a pretty good end-of-the-'news-cycle' analysis of the Sherrod brouhaha: Cry Racism! Notice:

Notice, by the way, that he alerted the viewer that “eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.” It’s in the video, and it is in the text of Breitbart’s original post on the topic. But the mainstream media selectively edited out this exonerating fact in virtually every story about Breitbart. So the subsequent charge against Breitbart by the mainstream media — that his editing was misleading — was itself misleading.

That is, Breitbart did not attack Mrs Sherrod personally (he was, and rightly so, attacking the hypocrisy of the NAACP), nor did he call her a racist -- even though it turns out that she *is* a racist -- NOR did he misrepresent her with the edited clip.

Mr Blankley ends with: "And so did the rank cynicism of overplaying the race card turn that dreaded knave into a joker"

Let us hope. Myself, I have always refused to be intimidated or silenced by that knee-jerk "liberal" bullshit accusation. May it be that Americans in general refuse to any longer be intimidated by it.