- Image via Wikipedia
Once upon a time, in a place nearby, there were two monsters. One was the monster of racism. He was the metaphor of the evils of racism. Like Frankenstein’s creation, he was stitched together of various parts. These parts included specific things such as antisemitism and general things like bigotry. While this beast was sometimes well loved by certain people, it is now regarded widely as a monster.
The brother of this monster is the racism monster. Ironically, those who fought against the monster of racism helped spawn this metaphorical menace. In their attempt to defeat the monster of racism, they helped create a metaphorical killing machine that swiftly and mercilessly attacks almost anyone who attracts its attention.
The most recent victim of the racism monster is Shirley Sherrod. An incomplete video of her was posted on YouTube which seemed to provide evidence that she was racist. In response to the video, she was pressured into resigning and the NAACP issued a statement condemning her. Naturally, certain conservative pundits were having a field day.
All this was done, it must be said, without anyone actually reviewing the entire video or considering the full facts of the situation. The racism monster, it could be argued, struck swiftly, savagely and mindlessly.
If it had turned out that the monster had actually struck down a racist, then perhaps it could have been forgiven for its zeal. However, the full video seems to make it clear that the allegedly racist incident was actually an experience that changed her views. The evidence also shows that she helped the farmer in question and the fact that the farmer’s wife is defending her lends credence to these claims. Other important details include the fact that the incident she mentioned took place long before she worked for the USDA and that her record shows no signs of racism. These facts were, obviously enough, not considered by the Obama administration nor by the NAACP.
I suspect that one reason the NAACP rushed to judgment is because of their recent condemnation of the Tea Party for racism. When they heard a black woman saying what appeared to be racist things, they probably worried that if they waited, they would be accused of following a double standard-condemning white racism while condoning black racism. While this is understandable, such a condemnation should be based on facts and it is reasonable to expect at least a minimal investigation (such as viewing the entire video). Such a leap to judgment and condemnation is, to say the least, unjust. Even if she were, in fact, a racist, the NAACP had a moral obligation to properly confirm this.
Interestingly, Roland Martin appeared on CNN to defend the NAACP’s condemnation. While he admitted that the NAACP had not seen the whole video, he argued that people in government should censor themselves and not say anything that could taken as racism. He did note that this was a matter of political reality rather than a desirable situation.
While I do agree that it is wise to watch what one says, my real concern is with the existence of the political reality in question. If people need to be worried that even a story about how they overcame their past biases can be taken as proof of racism, then there is something seriously wrong with the political reality.
In the case of the administration, they also worry a great deal about race matters. While it is morally correct to remove known racists from such positions, there is also a moral obligation to investigate such allegations thoroughly. If Sherrod had been charged with committing a criminal offense, presumably her guilt or innocence would need to be established before she could be fired. However, in the case of a charge of racism the assumption is clearly that a person is guilty until she can prove otherwise.
While the monster of racism is a fearsome beast, letting the racism monster run free is not a solution. While we should condemn racism, we have a moral obligation to confirm before condemning.
From a moral standpoint, the NAACP and the government owe Sherrod an apology. At the very least she should also get her job back. This situation should also serve as lesson about the misuse of charges of racism as a political tool.
Barack Obama is a racist. “My Grandmother was a typical white person.” “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly.” (This was before he knew anything about the incident.) His assumption that the police in Arizona will profile is racist.
Spike Lee is a racist. “I don’t do Fox News.”
Louis Farrakan is a racist. He called me a cracker.
King Shameer Showbiz, or whatever the hell his name is, the guy who stood out in front of the polling place with a baton is a racist. He encourages Blacks to kill white babies.
Ben Jealous is a racist since he accuses the TEA Party of being racist but apparently can’t or won’t recognize the aforementioned King of Beers Blowfiz is a racist.
Practically every word out of the mouth of Marc Lamont Hill is racist.
But, when you boil away all the fluff and hyperbole, who gives a shit?
The 24 hour news cycle, of course. Also people who are concerned with things like justice and ethics.
I’m not familiar with Marc Lamont Hill, but your claim that ” Practically every word out of the mouth of Marc Lamont Hill is racist” makes sirens and flashing lights and bells go off. Could you please offer up a couple samples of reasonable length (clearlly sourced) where your claim is verified? I’m reminded of the preacher’s claim in a video on this forum a few days ago (July 16 article) where he claimed Saul Alinsky used the word “change” at least 15 times on every other page. I tend to be skeptical and such hyperbole doesn’t sit well with me. It usually makes me doubt the credibility of the source.
“His assumption that the police in Arizona will profile is racist. ”
Is anyone’s assumption that the police in Arizona will NOT profile racist?
Lots of people “don’t do Fox News.” Are they all racists. Does “do[ing] Fox News” guarantee that you’re not racist? 🙂 I don’t believe that their dubious claim of “Fair and Balanced” guarantees that their viewers will be rendered ‘sans racial bias’ simply by watching them on the tube.
Obama’s Cambridge claims, Obama’s typical white person reference, Farrakhan’s racism I can agree with as long as a clear historical perspective is in place concerning the pitiful history of blacks and whites in this society. . .King Shameer Showbiz? Google’s a pretty powerful search engine yet when I entered that name to verify your claim I got nothing. Since I have no idea who King whatsisface is, I can’t say anything about the Ben Jealous claim other than it’s dubious. So , boiled down, you’ve given us a list of some viable points mixed liberally with a load of hyperbolic crap.
If you don’t give a shit (even a small one) about racism and what it has done and is still doing and will do to whites and people of color in this country what do you give a shit about ? Or are you simply emotionally and intellectually constipated?
ex. I think Obama is a typical black person talking about typical white people. does that sound racist? Why should we take racism into historical perspective with Farrakhan? Either racism is racism right in some examples? We are not going to get past racism with political Jujitsu like you just rattled off.
By the way it took me a total of about 2 minutes to find a video of the Black Panther promoting the murder of ‘Cracker Babies’. Me thinks you might try harder next time. Interestingly enough these videos are being scrubbed off of YouTube. The last instance I posted on another site had been taken down.
cheers
And black feelings toward whites should have no context, right? Not surprisingly you’d like us to we ignore that context. .That way we can be justified in glossing over or ignoring the historical context of white feelings toward blacks in this country during the latter part of the 18th , the 19th and the first 2/3 of the 20th century? What, in fact, was the justification for white anger and hatred toward blacks at that time?
I have no problem identifying sources of black anger toward whites (slavery is an example, segregation, lynchings, –Byrd etc in the white-sheetedKlan). Now why don’t you make a brief list of sources of white anger and hatred toward blacks. And we’ll see which list sounds less whiny and more sensible.
You’re correct in that “We are not going to get past racism with [the kind of ] political [and moral!] Jujitsu” I explain in my first two paragraphs here.
t.
I understand why but we will not get past racism when the race peddlers keep pushing it. Black and White kidsgrowing up don’t start hating each other over skin color until they are taught to do so. This isn’t genetic.
Taught by the “race peddlers”? Who are these race peddlers to whom you allude ? Might they be their parents who were raised in racist environs and never shook off the racist stink? Their peers who are being raised in toxic racist environs? On objective view of the world around us confirms that that’s happening out there. If it wouldn’t be, we would no longer have racists and racism-deniers in this country. “You’ve got to be carefully taught”
But surely you’re not implying that those who point out black-on-white racism ( the racism, BTW that we’ve spent two centuries trying to eradicate in this country) ” are race peddlers? What about the mother who explains to her child at a Palin rally why the old fart brandishing a stuffed monkey with Obama’s name taped to its chest should be viewed as a bigot a? Is she a race peddler? I don’t think so. . . Someone has to point out real racism where it exists, or the children won’t be able to recognize it. The kid’ll think it’s as “natural” as pubic hair. but it’s not. Sorry k. I don’t think approach is healthy at all.
Correction: Change “those who point out black-on-white racism” to “those who point out white-on-black racism”
I’m reasonably 🙂 certain everyone knows who was enslaved and who wasn’t but the correction must be made just in case.
“Either racism is racism right in some examples?” Wow, I need to edit better. I’m not even what I was trying to say other than ‘Either racism is righ or wrong.’ I think the internet you were having a hard time using just kicked my ass.
“The most recent victim of the racism monster is Shirley Sherrod. An incomplete video of her was posted on YouTube which seemed to provide evidence that she was racist. In response to the video, she was pressured into resigning and the NAACP issued a statement condemning her. Naturally, certain conservative pundits were having a field day.”
Yes, a total victim. Was she trying out for a part in a movie about racism. What situation would it have been appropriate for her to say such things? Bill O’Reilly agrees with you that it was incomplete and has invited her to come on his show to give her side of the story. She refused.
In fact I think maybe all of the Tea Party racism was taken out of context too. Do we need an ‘Ok start filming me..’ and a ‘…Cut!’ to make any video believeable anymore?
Who was first to bring the improperly edited video to public attention? I have a sneaking suspicion who it was, but I’d like to know for sure. Magus posted the Fox News coverage on Race and Tea (7/16 article, 7/ 20 post).
Improperly edited? Was there some CGI magic making her say something she didn’t really say? She said racist things. Did she do the right thing eventually 24 years ago? Yes she did. Should she have lost her job for saying she had racist thoughts? I don’t think so. At least she is being honest about race. Are you saying she didn’t say anything racist?
“In fact I think maybe all of the Tea Party racism was taken out of context too”
You’re appearing very desperate here. Go back to the Race and Tea article for the real context the NFTP and Willy Cozad, a former TP member, recognize.
Desperate? I think you are imagining things now. Is that how you see me? Wiping sweat off my furrowed brows and typing feverishly hoping just ONE prog-iberal will be converted to meet my quota for the neo-con book of the month club membership before time runs out? I said ‘….all of the Tea Party racism…’ and you gave me one example from a great sea of a grass roots movement. The Left’s greatest weapon to discredit is racism and I am not buying that the Tea Party is comprised of a significant number of racists. Again, this Tea Party thing is too new to even see where it is going other that the overwhelming message you find among ‘all’ Tea Parties is a dislike of the government growing out of control. The government has grown by 20% since Obama took office. Where does the government get money? (rhetorical). What is the unemployment rate of the private sector?(I can’t wait for a Bush tie in). What is the unemployment rate of the US Government? You don’t see a problem here? If you do then you just may understand this Tea Party phenomenon. If you don’t see a problem with government growth and falling government revenue then you may just think the Tea Party movement is racially motivated in any significant way.
The part that was improperly edited out is called the context.
Yes, that is what I was saying. She said she was having racist thoughts, I get it. What other context can there be? She was threatenned at gun point to say it(just off camera)?
We’d know what the context was if it had been presented wouldn’t we?. The entire speech wasn’t presented. It was selectively edited. Here’s the context that was omitted:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210054?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29#1
Click on the “video evidence” of Shirley Sherrod’s “racism” and read the stuff Breitbart and his manipulated version left out.
“I am not buying that the Tea Party is comprised of a significant number of racists.” And I and most others aren’t selling that. What is clearlly happening is that the right is doing iits mightiest to convince us all that large numbers of people who oppose the Tea Party because of its lack of cohesion and coherent ideas and leadership are saying that there are a significant number of racists in the “Party”. We’re saying that there are some racists within the party and on its fringes. The only example that I provided that the racism ‘might’ be more widespread comes from an avowed racist and I didn’t claim that that NH nutbag’s statement proved “significant numbers”.
“The government has grown by 20% since Obama took office.” Did that growth happen within the first month of his inauguration? (When the Tea Party had already begun to take shape) “The unemployment rate in the private sector” It was rising under Bush (yes, his wonders are still working their way through the system) and could hardly be expected to shift direction on a one-month dime given the state of the economy just before Obama arrived in the Oval Office. Where did the government get money to pay for Medicare PartD (a 2003 Bush era creation) and a war of choice in Iraq? Where were the pissed off Tea Partiers then?
“you gave me one example” You’re losing me here. Something is out of context or lacks a clear referent. Example off what? In which comment of mine?
You know what I AM buying? That you’ll be “sweating” trying to conjure up out of thin air some sensible response to this comment.