The Shirley Sherrod Situation

[anthriel]

From Frelga:

The fear of the privileged is that, should a disenfranchised group gain power, members of this group will use the power to the exclusive benefit of fellow members and to detriment or outright revenge against the original privileged group. Blacks, women, atheists, whatever.

Spot on Frelga. And it is only potent when the majority group has behaved badly and know it.

Hmmm. Makes you think, doesn't it.

Does the majority group always behave badly?

This is not rhetorical. I wonder about humans, and the behaviors common to us all... if a person is part of the majority group, do they always tend to achieve or protect that status at the expense of the minority groups?

Just a thought.

[Griffon64]

It seems that people tend to seek advancement and power any way they can. Often, having a majority will be an aid in that goal, but not always. For instance, people of European descent were a minority in South Africa ( and in other places on the continent where the British, etc established colonial power ), yet reaped their benefits at the expense of the majority group, in this case for a racial definition of "group".

Then again, the Hutus were the majority and the Tutsis the minority, although that issue is made murky by the colonial past of that region.

I think the behavior common to most humans is to jostle for position ( power, advancement ) with other humans. It just so happens that alliances to achieve this can form along majority group lines ( for any definition of group ). But it can form along other lines as well, because it tend to form along lines that consolidate power, and power can come from many sources, not numbers alone.

Though it may be that numbers hold a separate kind of power because of the emboldening effect of "There's ten of us and one of you, so we can totally take you out even if you have bigger/better X".

[halplm]

I've been in "the majority" my whole life... and I daresay I'm among the "intellectual elite" at the same time.

I can honestly say neither has helped me in any endeavor I've gone into...and I can honestly say that both have actively hindered my personal attempts at personal accomplishment.

So anyone that claims there's any so called "white privilege" or any supposed advantages based on anything related to educational advantage or any such things... I can say is total, well, crap.

If anyone wants to blame me for slavery or discrimination based on the fact that I am white, I can't really do anything about that, and no one would come to my defense in such a case anyway.

But the fact that I am white and smart has hurt me... implies the "white privilege" is a total lie, and in fact the opposite is true.

But nothing I say will convince anyone anyway... I'll just crawl back into my hole of self-loathing and failure.

[JewelSong]

I can honestly say that both have actively hindered my personal attempts at personal accomplishment.

Hal, is it possible that there are other factors that have hindered you, in spite of you being white and smart?


"White privilege" doesn't mean that all whites will have an advantage. It's a societal thing, not a personal thing.

[yovargas]

Nobody ever said that every single white person will lead a more privileged life than every single black person. This does not counter the simple, objective truth that blacks in this country have less opportunities overall.

[Griffon64]

halplm - my being white and of reasonable intelligence has never impeded me, except maybe during the time I lived in a country that had a very active affirmative action policy. That is already a big advantage, to generally not be impeded because of your race.

Your personal experiences are obviously vehemently colouring your views on this, but it probably also gives you insight into the feelings of those individual members of minorities who have been disadvantaged because of their race.

And like JewelSong says, there's more to success than race and education. But an intellectual elite like you already know that.

[Infidel]

Here is the statement, in the context of what he says before it:

For years, she has been operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN.

I think there were those in the Agriculture Department who objected to her being hired in the first place.

Plus there was the politics. If you are running for election in south Georgia, you don't want to have to explain someone like Sherrod.

It is abundantly clear to me that he is talking about her past record, not the corrent issue.

A possibility:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins08022010.html

The Story of Annie Hawkins and New Communities, Inc.
The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod
By RON WILKINS

Imagine farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun, sprayed with pesticides and paid less than minimum wage. Imagine the United Farm Workers called in to defend these laborers against such exploitation by management. Now imagine that the farm workers are black children and adults and that the managers are Shirley Sherrod, her husband Rev. Charles Sherrod, and a host of others. But it’s no illusion; this is fact.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow. Needless to say, I don't know how accurate this is, but it certainly puts a different light on things.

[anthriel]

I get the increasingly strong feeling that there's a lot about Shirley Sherrod that is not pretty.

But I still think that what happened to her in the wake of her speech was wrong. Even if she were a bad person, having her comments taken out of context to use as a political bludgeon were wrong. And then the very people who KNEW the truth skewering her right along side the self-serving, truth-be-damned evil right wing blogger seems REALLY wrong. Cowardly, in a way. We'll sacrifice this person to make ourselves look good, sort of thing.

But I wonder.... I wonder if the reactions of the NAACP and the USDA were tainted by some bit of history with Sherrod. Just because most of us didn't know of her, doesn't mean she hadn't done some relatively "toe the line" sort of things before.

Perhaps this level of national exposure, brought on by someone that they had struggled with on some level for a while, was REALLY unwelcome. It would explain how quickly they threw her under the wheels of the bus.

[halplm]

I get the increasingly strong feeling that there's a lot about Shirley Sherrod that is not pretty.

But I still think that what happened to her in the wake of her speech was wrong. Even if she were a bad person, having her comments taken out of context to use as a political bludgeon were wrong. And then the very people who KNEW the truth skewering her right along side the self-serving, truth-be-damned evil right wing blogger seems REALLY wrong. Cowardly, in a way. We'll sacrifice this person to make ourselves look good, sort of thing.

Once again, breitbart posted the edited video that contained the part of the video where Sherrod talked about her supposed recovery from her racism... it was the NAACP and Obama administration that ignored that part over the fear that her statements would be taken out of context by specifically Glenn Beck, but generally by the blogosphere.

how that makes him a cowardly self-serving truth-be-damned evil right wing blogger... I don't understand.

No, Jewelsong, those were exactly the factors. Oh there are other bad things that have made life suck on occasion, but specifically those things have hurt me in certain situations.

[Primula Baggins]

how that makes him a cowardly self-serving truth-be-damned evil right wing blogger... I don't understand.

I detected a certain amount of irony in Anthy's phrasing there, Hal.

Not that it wasn't well placed.

[anthriel]

how that makes him a cowardly self-serving truth-be-damned evil right wing blogger... I don't understand.

I detected a certain amount of irony in Anthy's phrasing there, Hal.

Not that it wasn't well placed.

Actually, I called the NAACP and USDA "cowardly". The right wing blogger was called everything else. Just for the record.

And no, I am not using over-the-top language with intentional irony... remember, I am a centrist, which means I can be mean to both sides. It's a perk.

I meant that the blogger was actually acting in a truth-be-damned evil manner, and I absolutely feel that is the case (the fact he was right-wing is just a fact; I tend to feel that both sides exhibit such behavior. But I know not everyone agrees with me on that!). I thought that he cherry picked her speech to make her look racist to the masses, in direct response to the NAACP saying they felt that the Tea Party was racist. Kind of a tit-for-tat attempt.

The only video clip I saw (early on) was pretty truncated, and made her look like a huge racist. I thought that came from Brietbart. If Breitbart did indeed post the entire speech, my apologies... I was unaware of that. From what I saw, only the part that made her look bad was shared.

[Primula Baggins]

My apologies, Anthy! And, y'know, I think there are more centrists around than you may think, here and elsewhere. Or certainly people who have no trouble being mean to both sides. Given that so many of them have it coming and all.

At this point, to be honest, I am much more frustrated by the left than by the right.

[Griffon64]

And, y'know, I think there are more centrists around than you may think, here and elsewhere. Or certainly people who have no trouble being mean to both sides. Given that so many of them have it coming and all.

Some try to be fair to both sides instead. But what to do when it is fair to be mean to both sides?

[Primula Baggins]

That's sort of where I was going with that.

[N.E. Brigand]

But I still think that what happened to her [Sherrod] in the wake of her speech was wrong. Even if she were a bad person, having her comments taken out of context to use as a political bludgeon were wrong.

Once again, Breitbart posted the edited video that contained the part of the video where Sherrod talked about her supposed recovery from her racism...

Hal, what on earth do you think was Breitbart's point in posting the video clip with the headline "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism"? It doesn't excuse the subsequent foolishness of the NAACP and Vilsack --nor whatever may turn out to be the truth about Sherrod's character-- to observe that Breitbart plainly thought the video showed she was a racist, which is plainly not the case.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not only does it have that headline, it also includes completely false written notes at the beginning that state that Sherrod was acting in her capacity as a USDA employee and that she failed to provide the white farmer with assistance. Both of those things are flat out lies. And while the edited video does include the line about it not being all about race, that line appears to be just a throwaway line as it is presented in that edited video; in no way does it demonstrate "her supposed recovery from her racism". Particularly since the edited video then immediately repeats the out-of-context line where she states that she did not give the white farmer the full force of her efforts. Nowhere in the edited clip does it make it clear (as it does in the full speech) that this took place long before she was hired by the USDA. Nowhere in the edited clip does it it make it clear (as it does in the full speech) that she went on to provide extensive efforts to help this farmer. And nowhere in the edited clip does it make clear (as it does in the full speech) the history of why she distrusted white people in the first place. As NEB states, none of this excuses the acts of the NAACP or Vilsack, or Sherrod herself, but it does make it abundantly clear that this was a clear case of a purposefully misleading and even flat out false presentation of information. Irregardless of anything else -- and irregardless of one's own political orientation -- that should be condemned in the strongest terms.

[Frelga]

Wow. Needless to say, I don't know how accurate this is, but it certainly puts a different light on things.

WHEN I know how accurate this is, I will make judgments. Not before. Sherrod had already been a target of blatant fabrication and now people who had been caught lying are digging for any dirt they can find to discredit her further.

As Anthy and iirc Prim said above, the video had nothing to do with any history Sherrod did or did not have except her alleged discrimination against the white farmer. She was fired for making those statements, not for any past history. If she was such a bad apple, USDA should've fired her sooner - the misleading video should not have influenced the decision one way or the other.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow. Needless to say, I don't know how accurate this is, but it certainly puts a different light on things.

WHEN I know how accurate this is, I will make judgments. Not before. Sherrod had already been a target of blatant fabrication and now people who had been caught lying are digging for any dirt they can find to discredit her further.

I have to wonder, Frelga, whether you actually read the article in question. It sure appears from this comment that you did not.

[axordil]

V-man--

Whether the allegations are accurate or not, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Counterpunch article's author had personal issues with Sherrod in the 70s. He comes off as someone with a grudge. Maybe that grudge is grounded in reality. Maybe not. When activists go after each other it can get ugly.

But on another level, even if his depiction of events is accurate, how much should we care about what someone was doing thirty-odd years ago, unless they've kept doing it since?

It's a question bigger than this particular case. I suspect most of us old enough to recall the 70s can think of things we did that would reflect poorly on us now. If we never moved past them, then they should still do so. If we changed...then perhaps not so much, statutes of limitation notwithstanding.


ETA: It's worth noting as well that others who worked at NCI have rather different memories. See this LA Times article.