NAACP passes resolution blasting Tea Party 'racism'

[BostonPirate]

republicans smelled blood in the water and the sharks had their way.

The truth in american politics has been slaughtered for expediency of political witch hunts.

sad day in america.

 

[Lostlover]

I STAND CORRECTED.

I heard the true story about this video clip and speech on NPR this evening. It turns out the events happened in the eighties. Ms. Sherrod was using the story as an example of her evolving attitudes on race and to highlight that blacks and whites are bound by similar economic circumstances. Also, she went on to help the white farmer save his farm, became friends with him and his wife, and remain friends to this day. The white couple issued a statement that she Ms. Sherrod helped save their farm and that the story has been blown way out of context.

So, I repudiate what I wrote above. I was wrong and it was wrong of the White House to demand her resignation. Nice work, Nick. Nothing like relying on right wing, racist fear mongers to spread a little racial some other website. Good work, I hope you are proud of yourself.

Don't worry. Time isn't on their side. Each day that passes, they mean less and less to this country. Just remember, these people don't represent all white people.

These dead enders lost the battle. And like that loud moviegoer that's being thrown out the theater for being too loud, they're getting really loud as they're being escorted out.

 

[laikaNYC]

republicans smelled blood in the water and the sharks had their way.

The truth in american politics has been slaughtered for expediency of political witch hunts.

sad day in america.

Did Republicans force her resignation? No. Her boss, and the White House told her to. Republicans had nothing to do with this witch hunt. Enough with the red herrings.

 

[JB3]

Hold up. Even though she realized her mistake, didn't she acknowledge that it took six months before she made right by the farmers? Its a small quibble, and I don't like how that video was edited and think many people over-reacted, but doesn't the fact still remain that she did abuse her position?

(just to be clear, I don't think it was grounds for her resignation, and was blown completely out of proportion)

 

[opinterph]

... doesn't the fact still remain that she did abuse her position?

What is the title associated with the position she abused?

 

[JB3]

What is the title associated with the position she abused?

Not sure (none of the reports offered up that information), but she readily admitted in the speech that she made up her mind to not offer the farmer all of the assistance available beyond the standard because she viewed him as a typical white man.

 

[NickCole]

I agree that there are instances of black prejudice in individual black people. I also believe that many black people have adopted a kind of identity politics that allows them to internalize a victim role far beyond whatever particular instances of racist discrimination they might have experienced.

Yes we agree.

I also believe that the particular instances of prejudiced acts that may have been committed by black people have not had the effect of substantially shifting the balance of power to such a degree that black prejudice against white folk can properly be described as racist in the narrow sense. (Racism is a system of maintaining a power structure favoring one race to the detriment of others.)

I agree with this as well, except your definition of racism is not the one I use. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think your definition implies only something broad-based, "a system maintaining a power structure," whereas when I refer to racism I mean the definition to include single individuals believing in racial superiority/inferiority in a wide range of ways, which is part of what I believe complicates and keeps racism alive in America to this day. But I agree with the point you make and that's the reason I worded my point as I did, saying that black prejudice against whites feeds the monster of racism rather than saying blacks are racist against whites.

I think this is what palemale was getting at when he says that black prejudice against white people does not exist, and if that is correct, it is this that I agree with him about.

I think that is not what he was getting at, I think he was speaking directly about black prejudice against whites, as I was, and whether or not it "feeds the monster of racism," as I put it. And, re-reading his posts now, though I never said anything about blacks being racist but rather about black prejudice against whites, it seems clear he was disagreeing with me.

My point in naming black prejudice against whites "feeding the monster of racism" was that we have dirty little secrets that complicate the issue of racism in America, which are not openly discussed or generally acknowledged and that that's part of the reason why American racism is so difficult for some in other countries to understand -- and indeed difficult for some Americans to understand.

While you and palemale share much of this analysis, there are some parts at which you may disagree (and perhaps even disagree with me). Nevertheless, I think there is enough commonality that the differences can be reconciled.

I don't see that palemale and I agree about any of it but maybe I'm missing something. Which elements, specifically, do you think we share commonality? Do you think we agree that blacks being prejudiced against whites is part of what nourishes racism, part of what keeps it from withering on the vine so to speak?

Certainly the Sherrod video is an example of a particular instance of black prejudice. She was wrong. The NAACP denounced her actions in the incident which she reported, and they denounced the positive response she received about that incident from some of the audience. Thus we see that at least one of the organizations often criticized as contributing to so-called black racism in fact rejects that attitude.

Yes.

Now, let me continue by stressing that ours is a racist society. We are all embedded in that society, and all of us have internalized to one degree or another the racism in it which resists change. Change has occurred within our society. The expressions of its racism have changed. New strategies for changing the racist power-relation have developed, and some of the old ones have been set aside or rejected. Likewise, people have developed different approaches for correcting for and to some degree expunging the racism they had internalized from their upbringing.

Well said. And I certainly agree. But, to reiterate my point, I think it's important to note that the change you refer to has not been simply in the direction of diminishing racism. The dirty little secrets I refer to, which number more than I've listed, are a continual infusion of fuel to racism. Up to and including the past 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, and the past year. My point was/is that problems like black prejudice against whites, which is ingrained in many blacks over generations and understandable as a response to generations of racism from whites, is part of the reason racism remains such a big problem in America rather than having withered on the vine.

 

[NickCole]

Well... that was her point. She went on to say that her attitude was wrong and she learned from it - but that was edited out. http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/

That's not true.

It was not edited out.

Go back to the video I posted above.

It shows Ms Sherrod saying, and provides subtitles in case you can't understand her, "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."

 

[NickCole]

I STAND CORRECTED.

I heard the true story about this video clip and speech on NPR this evening. It turns out the events happened in the eighties. Ms. Sherrod was using the story as an example of her evolving attitudes on race and to highlight that blacks and whites are bound by similar economic circumstances. Also, she went on to help the white farmer save his farm, became friends with him and his wife, and remain friends to this day. The white couple issued a statement that she Ms. Sherrod helped save their farm and that the story has been blown way out of context.

So, I repudiate what I wrote above. I was wrong and it was wrong of the White House to demand her resignation. Nice work, Nick. Nothing like relying on right wing, racist fear mongers to spread a little racial some other website. Good work, I hope you are proud of yourself.

Indeed I am proud of myself.

First of all, everything you report that you heard on NPR is reported in the link I posted in post #126. Before MercuryJones posted about it and before you posted about it. Before anybody here posted about it.

I posted a YouTube video that was the subject of much discussion across the nation, led to the White House asking for Ms Sherrod's resignation and her resigning, and led to the NAACP releasing a substantive statement. Yes I am proud of myself for introducing that current event to our CE&P forum and providing the actual video so everybody could see and hear for themselves what the White House and NAACP saw and heard and responded to. It was fully relevant to the topic of this thread and specifically to the discussion you and I had engaged in in this thread. Furthermore, the commentary I wrote in the post wherein I linked to the YouTube video was fully truthful and correct and does not seek to spread racial some other website:

At a NAACP event, a USDA official explains her attitude about helping white farmers. Nobody in the audience seems offended or shocked or even slightly surprised. In fact they appear to approve.

Ms Sherrod resigned from USDA after this video surfaced yesterday, and she now says her comments are being misconstrued. (Then why resign?) But no matter what else is true, she says what we hear her saying on the video and the NAACP event audience demonstrates no objection to what she's saying.

This is a black woman speaking to a black audience about black prejudice against whites. Understandable? I think so. But clearly it is there.

All things considered, yes I am pleased with what I brought to the discussion and the way I did it.

 

[NickCole]

I never said the black prejudice against whites (or any other group for that matter) did not exist. I disputed Nick's point that it was a problem that fanned the flames of racism (as I understood Nick to mean that it caused or exacerbated white prejudice).

Yes, black prejudice against whites feeds into racism and exacerbates white prejudice, just as white prejudice against blacks feeds into racism and exacerbates black prejudice against whites.

It certainly exists. I just don't encounter it and I do not believe it is a major problem. The much bigger problem is when people fear monger and race bait by puffing up idiots like Reverend Wright, or manufacture alleged black prejudice where it doesn't exist, as with Ms. Sherrod, to score political points or take pot shots at President Obama.

Are you saying that my comments posted here are a "much bigger problem" than that of black prejudice against whites?

Ms. Sherrod, who has been smeared all day for being racist, has now lost her job even though she has been good at what she does, has helped whites and blacks, and speaks to groups about the importance of getting beyond race and understanding that the problems ordinary people face are economic problems shared by people of all races. That is a tragic thing. She seems to be a good person who has been defamed in the most malicious way by right wing media outlets and bloggers (and the idiots who rely on their garbage).

Ms Sherrod lost her job, according to her, because the Obama White House "harrassed" her into resigning.

 

[NickCole]

Thanks for that clip. I think it, along with your previous post, should be (though I really wonder if it will be) enough to shift our evaluation of her speech.

Now, let me go on to comment about the administration's response. It does not surprise me that the administration asked immediately for Ms. Sherrod's resignation. This strikes me as very similar to the Clinton administration's asking for Jocelyn Elder's resignation for suggesting publicly that masturbation be presented as a safe-sex option. In both cases, statements with good intent were taken out of context by the administrations' detractors and used as a cudgel. Both brought instant embarrassment to their superiors, and both were immediately asked to resign. Both were quickly seen to have been grossly misrepresented by the wingnuts. Ms. Elders did not get her job back. I hope the Obama administration turns out to be better than that.

No, I can't let this comparison stand. There are too many people here who weren't around then or for other reasons don't know what happened and they might believe this characterization is complete.

Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, speaking at the UN about AIDS, was asked if it would be appropriate to "promote masturbation" as a way to keep young people from engaging in risky forms of sex. She replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." A big controversy erupted, which was as much about ridicule as outrage and, unlike this one-day Sherrod incident, it came on the heels of other controversial statements Elders had made like supporting drug legalization and distributing condoms in public schools and dealing with gun violence by making safer weapons and safer bullets.

Personally I felt I understood what she was saying and that her views merited consideration and discussion, and I liked her outspokenness, but it was a long running silliness that turned into a long running mess that placed the Clinton Administration in a position of having to continually defend her and itself during the entire year she was Surgeon General. The way she expressed her unorthodox views made her an easy target of ridicule for the right wing and over a year she kept giving them new material. It wasn't, as you suggest by making this comparison, a one day hullabaloo involving a previously unknown run-of-the-mill government employee. This was the Surgeon General wearing a uniform and providing a year's worth of prime time fodder for ridicule of the Administration. She was not fired hastily or without the administration fully understanding what happened, and she should not have been offered her job back. And lastly, Dr. Elders never suggested that the Clinton White House harrassed her, as Ms Sherrod has characterized of the Obama White House.

 

[NickCole]

Hold up. Even though she realized her mistake, didn't she acknowledge that it took six months before she made right by the farmers? Its a small quibble, and I don't like how that video was edited and think many people over-reacted, but doesn't the fact still remain that she did abuse her position?

(just to be clear, I don't think it was grounds for her resignation, and was blown completely out of proportion)

I suppose it could be said she did at least for a time abuse her position, though personally I think "abuse" is an overly harsh word for the circumstances.

She says, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

Frankly I think that describes a lot of workers in government. And for that matter outside of government. That doesn't excuse it, but places it in context.

Later in the same speech she says she was wrong and eventually helped the white farmer. But there was some period of time when she "didn't give him the full force of what I could do" because he was white and in her view acting superior, so definitely, at the least, that shouldn't be defended.

 

[construct]

I don't see that palemale and I agree about any of it but maybe I'm missing something. Which elements, specifically, do you think we share commonality? Do you think we agree that blacks being prejudiced against whites is part of what nourishes racism, part of what keeps it from withering on the vine so to speak?

What I see as agreement is the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem in which all of us, by necessity, participate. Racism is unavoidable because it is impossible for us to extricate ourselves from our cultural context. This is, to my mind at least, the foundation of the entire discussion.

I'm not myself sure that the prejudice of particular black people, which may be nurtured by a personalization of identity politics, so much nourishes racism as it does reveal an endemic racism that was already there just waiting to be made manifest. In this respect, I differ from those who propose a theory of backlash. However, both the 'revealed racism' explanation and the 'backlash' explanation are attempts to explain the same phenomenon. Thus there is agreement about what is to be explained even though the explanations differ.

Well said. And I certainly agree. But, to reiterate my point, I think it's important to note that the change you refer to has not been simply in the direction of diminishing racism. The dirty little secrets I refer to, which number more than I've listed, are a continual infusion of fuel to racism. Up to and including the past 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, and the past year. My point was/is that problems like black prejudice against whites, which is ingrained in many blacks over generations and understandable as a response to generations of racism from whites, is part of the reason racism remains such a big problem in America rather than having withered on the vine.

I agree that the changes have not been uniformly in the direction of equalizing the power-relation of racism. I didn't make myself completely clear about the directions of those changes. At that point I was merely noting that the strategies developed in relation to racism are subject to change. The changes I mentioned in that post tend to be toward greater equality, but the very fact that change is possible should be understood to imply that both lateral and retrograde change is possible as well. It is these latter shifts (and 'shift' is a better and more exact word for what I called 'change') that I recognize as what you call the dirty little secret. It is not at all a secret to me, but these lateral and backward shifts are less frequently discussed with any precision than the movement toward equality that is often presented as though it were inevitable.



Let me take a moment to draw out a particularly troublesome aspect in all this analysis. It is clear to me and has been for some time that I am far less optimistic about the idea of a color-blind society. We certainly don't live in a post-racial society, and I'm not convinced that it is even possible to achieve a post-racial society. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to view a post-racial society as an unqualifiedly positive goal. The homogenization that is implied by the term 'post-racial' is inimical to my political and cultural theory. I believe that diversity is a valuable characteristic of our society and should not be overcome in the name of peace and justice.

The drawback to my approach is that I am fairly convinced that racism is an unavoidable correlate to my celebration of diversity. The struggle to maintain or to shift balances of power and the effort to decenter and recenter discourses as a strategy to achieve those shifts will always be with us. Perhaps it will be possible to deconstruct racism through a radical shift in the current constellation of discursive fields and their practical and institutional manifestations, but such shifts are not predictable. Struggle within power relations is structural to human society, and it is futile to set its eradication as a goal. It is as impossible to achieve as jumping out of your own skin. Perhaps one day the current centers will cease to hold and become free-floating as other nodal points and discursive fields solidify. In the meantime, one can really only hope and strategize toward amelioration of particular manifestations of injustice.

 

[construct]

No, I can't let this comparison stand. There are too many people here who weren't around then or for other reasons don't know what happened and they might believe this characterization is complete.

Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, speaking at the UN about AIDS, was asked if it would be appropriate to "promote masturbation" as a way to keep young people from engaging in risky forms of sex. She replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." A big controversy erupted, which was as much about ridicule as outrage and, unlike this one-day Sherrod incident, it came on the heels of other controversial statements Elders had made like supporting drug legalization and distributing condoms in public schools and dealing with gun violence by making safer weapons and safer bullets.

Personally I felt I understood what she was saying and that her views merited consideration and discussion, and I liked her outspokenness, but it was a long running silliness that turned into a long running mess that placed the Clinton Administration in a position of having to continually defend her and itself during the entire year she was Surgeon General. The way she expressed her unorthodox views made her an easy target of ridicule for the right wing and over a year she kept giving them new material. It wasn't, as you suggest by making this comparison, a one day hullabaloo involving a previously unknown run-of-the-mill government employee. This was the Surgeon General wearing a uniform and providing a year's worth of prime time fodder for ridicule of the Administration. She was not fired hastily or without the administration fully understanding what happened, and she should not have been offered her job back. And lastly, Dr. Elders never suggested that the Clinton White House harrassed her, as Ms Sherrod has characterized of the Obama White House.

Point well taken, my analogy was inadequate. My point that rush to judgment is neither new nor un-American and that I don't expect it to be absent from any political organ still stands.

I liked Elders, too, as should be obvious from my post. I agreed with most of her suggestions. I would have loved to have kept her. She certainly was a source of good ideas at a time when thinking outside the box and destabilizing the status quo were badly needed.

 

[palemale]

Are you saying that my comments posted here are a "much bigger problem" than that of black prejudice against whites?

Yes, your comments are an example of the much bigger problem.

 

[NickCole]

What I see as agreement is the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem in which all of us, by necessity, participate. Racism is unavoidable because it is impossible for us to extricate ourselves from our cultural context. This is, to my mind at least, the foundation of the entire discussion.

If you're saying palemale and I agree that racism exists, sure.

But that's not much of an agreement. You'd have to be really out to lunch to not agree about that.

I think you may be saying something more than that, though, and I don't think palemale and I agree about it.

What we disagree about is that blacks participate in the systemic problem of racism as well. Not just a few blacks here and there now and then, but at this juncture of Racism in America it's become a part of the problem, and my labeling it a dirty little secret we're not supposed to talk about was, in my opinion, supported by palemale's response. When I tried to explain this, palemale accused me of blaming the victim.

I'm not myself sure that the prejudice of particular black people, which may be nurtured by a personalization of identity politics, so much nourishes racism as it does reveal an endemic racism that was already there just waiting to be made manifest. In this respect, I differ from those who propose a theory of backlash. However, both the 'revealed racism' explanation and the 'backlash' explanation are attempts to explain the same phenomenon. Thus there is agreement about what is to be explained even though the explanations differ.

As you say, you and I agree about what is to be explained.

I agree that the changes have not been uniformly in the direction of equalizing the power-relation of racism. I didn't make myself completely clear about the directions of those changes. At that point I was merely noting that the strategies developed in relation to racism are subject to change. The changes I mentioned in that post tend to be toward greater equality, but the very fact that change is possible should be understood to imply that both lateral and retrograde change is possible as well. It is these latter shifts (and 'shift' is a better and more exact word for what I called 'change') that I recognize as what you call the dirty little secret. It is not at all a secret to me, but these lateral and backward shifts are less frequently discussed with any precision than the movement toward equality that is often presented as though it were inevitable.

Yep. And as for those dirty little secrets not being a secret to you -- they're not a secret to a lot of people, they're just not talked about because it's easier to keep quiet about it than to be accused of being racist or blaming the victim or whatever. But in truth a whole lot of people are keeping secrets everybody else has got.

Let me take a moment to draw out a particularly troublesome aspect in all this analysis. It is clear to me and has been for some time that I am far less optimistic about the idea of a color-blind society. We certainly don't live in a post-racial society, and I'm not convinced that it is even possible to achieve a post-racial society. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to view a post-racial society as an unqualifiedly positive goal. The homogenization that is implied by the term 'post-racial' is inimical to my political and cultural theory. I believe that diversity is a valuable characteristic of our society and should not be overcome in the name of peace and justice.

The drawback to my approach is that I am fairly convinced that racism is an unavoidable correlate to my celebration of diversity. The struggle to maintain or to shift balances of power and the effort to decenter and recenter discourses as a strategy to achieve those shifts will always be with us. Perhaps it will be possible to deconstruct racism through a radical shift in the current constellation of discursive fields and their practical and institutional manifestations, but such shifts are not predictable. Struggle within power relations is structural to human society, and it is futile to set its eradication as a goal. It is as impossible to achieve as jumping out of your own skin. Perhaps one day the current centers will cease to hold and become free-floating as other nodal points and discursive fields solidify. In the meantime, one can really only hope and strategize toward amelioration of particular manifestations of injustice.

Yes I've touched on this many times. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

[NickCole]

Yes, your comments are an example of the much bigger problem.

Yes I knew you believe that.

So be specific.

What, exactly, are my comments an example of that is the much bigger problem than black prejudice against whites?

 

[BostonPirate]

this thread was about white prejudice against black people within the teabagger movement.

I became interested in seeing, as a student of human nature, a few white people defended the actions of the teabaggers by saying that it is ok, because black people do it too.

this thread continues to spin out and it does so in quite interesting ways I could never have predicted.

really very telling.

I am still marvelling at the display going on here.

 

[MercuryJones]

Hold up. Even though she realized her mistake, didn't she acknowledge that it took six months before she made right by the farmers? Its a small quibble, and I don't like how that video was edited and think many people over-reacted, but doesn't the fact still remain that she did abuse her position?

She worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, a private non-profit chartered in 1967 for the express purpose of forming, aiding and developing co-ops for black farmers and landowners. Helping farmers generally wasn't the mission statement of the non-profit, though she did it anyway.

(Incidentally, the current version of the group's mission statement reads: We strive toward the development of self-supporting communities with programs that increase income and enhance other opportunities; and we strive to assist in land retention and development, especially for African Americans, but essentially for all family farmers.)

 

[palemale]

Yes I knew you believe that.

So be specific.

What, exactly, are my comments an example of that is the much bigger problem than black prejudice against whites?

Your comments are an example of the practice of taking isolated real (as with Rev. Wright) or imagined (as with Shirley Sherrod) instances of black prejudice against whites and blowing them way out of proportion to score political points or to achieve some political advantage by exacerbating racial tensions.