NAACP passes resolution blasting Tea Party 'racism'

[MercuryJones]

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.

Also an example of promoting a false equivalence.

People sometimes seek any example to demonstrate that a behavior or practice exists on "both sides" of an issue. But such examples are often fallacious, ignoring prevalence or impact.

I'm reminded of someone pointing out that some cats and dogs play fetch - but not noting that it's the rare cat that plays fetch, while it's a near universal behavior among dogs.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think that construct has hit on a real point that makes all parties both correct and incorrect to a degree.

I will add my views to it this way....

Yes there are instances of prejudice against and within both communities, but the majority has the opportunity to institutionalize it, while the minority does not. Cross racial violence is statistically unusual... most crimes are committed within a racial community, so what we are left with is one side, the majority with the ability to codify prejudice, as DOMA did to gays, but the minority is unable to, outside of its own community.

this makes the minority isolated and that does not serve them well.

THis thread is about a large organization that has now admitted to the racism, fired someone over it, and has made an attempt to blame the other side for wrong doing.

I give the teabaggers credit for taking some action from within, but the deflection thing is simply childishas has all of the back and forth in this thread has devolved into an arguement about whose the most racist and then justifying it.

Using other peoples racism as an excuse to continue your own racism is simply unnaceptable and is just a deflecting action... and I am not singling out anyone. lets just say it is a very childish thing to do... sort of like children saying.... "you did it" .. NO you did it' ... "No you did it" its an old and tiresome arguement.

lastly... we have to consider the actual vollume of posiblilties.... if arbitrarily, ten percent of all people, regardless of their race, have racial prejudices, then there is a bigger issue for the majority racial problem, because there are simply more of them.

is that clear?

ten percent of one million versus ten percent of ten thousand is a HUGE difference in what gets done and said on a daily basis racialy and who it is aimed at.

my real hope comes from the fact that race does not seem to be an issue in younger people as much and as often. That means that in about twenty years, things WILL get better.

some of us older warhorses need to get out of the aay and let history unfold.

 

[construct]

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.

You are right. I am saying something more. I left something unsaid that may clarify my position. What I left unsaid was a description of the alternative to our understanding of systemic racism. The alternative is the notion that racism is simply another word for prejudice which is held and instantiated only be individuals. In this model, society as a whole cannot possibly be racist; only individuals can be racist. I suppose one could be a little bit racist or a whole lot racist and perhaps even racism-free, but it is seen as specific to individuals.

Likewise this alternative individual model views racism as a uniform phenomenon. Its manifestation is always mere prejudice against another race regardless of its relation to its social structural context. If a black person is prejudiced against white folk, it is not qualitatively different from a white person being prejudiced against black folk. Those individuals are each exhibiting racism. Racism becomes virtually synonymous with raced-based prejudice of every sort.

I am distinguishing a social model over against an individual model because, as I have asserted on a number of occasions elsewhere, there really is no such thing as an individual. There are only people within a network of relations within social groups. I call this 'being embedded.' This is the conceptual foundation for my narrow definition of racism as supporting the racial power-relation of its time. Right now white folk still enjoy a hegemony in our American society. It has been modified and qualified over the past hundred and fifty years, but it has by no means been eradicated. Thus, a racist black person's prejudice is identical in its valorization to that of a white person. The racist black identifies with the white folk and seeks to maintain his status by supporting the status quo. He exhibits the same anti-black preferences shared by his racist white counterparts.

People of minority races may adopt attitudes or use tactics that exhibit a mirror image of racism narrowly defined. It may take the form of adopting or projecting victimhood out of proportion to particular situations. It may take the form of calling attention to racial differences as motivations for actions that may bear only tangential relationship to the actual motivations (playing the 'race card'). Posing double-bind questions to facilely demonstrate a racism stronger than it may actually be in a given person or situation. The individual model would label all this 'reverse racism' and have done with it. The social model would see it as a tactical reversal that aims at recentering. Rather than being racism as such, it is a use of prejudicial tactics to subvert the inequities of the status quo.

All this really is more than a simplistic observation that racism exists. Of course, we all agree that something called 'racism' exists, but what it designates is very different in the two models. When I say that I believe that you and palemale agree about the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem, I am saying that I believe that the three of us are all speaking within the context of relatively small variations of what I have named the social model.

I hope this clarifies.

 

[BostonPirate]

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/

The farming family in her story has come to her defense, saying she helped them. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/eveningnews/main6696637.shtml

Leave it to Mercury to rationalize in defense of a liberal. Imagine if this had been a Republican saying the same about a black farmer. It would be top story on MSNBC 24/7

If she did nothing wrong why did the White House call her THREE times and has for her resignation? Only the wingnuts on the left are defending her actions.

It would now appear that the Woman did nothing wrong. As Mercury has stated, this tape was editted to make her look bad. Once you see the whole thing, you see she is telling her audience NOT to allow your prejudice to interfere in doing your job.

She is owed an apology. I saw her this morning on the news and she says that she probably will not take hew job back if offered because after 30 years of service she was shoveled out of the door by people who listened to political hacks instead of making an investigation.

I just have to keep asking myself a question..... why do the teabaggers keep trying to dig up and manufacture racism within the black community? twice in two weeks now, we have seen these scandals unravel into a pile of nothing as personal lives are destroyed by gossip mongers, liars and crooks.

It is outrageous.

And the thing is this... the teabaggers KNOW what they do is racist so they are trying to do this "pot meet kettle" routine over and over again, someohow claiming that its ok for them to do it because the other guys do it.

They are digging hard for dirt on someone else to cover their ugly filthy hides and once again, the racists and their apologists here are ignoring what we are seeing unfold in real time.

this whole blacks are racists thing in this thread is a charade and this example, chosen by the those trying to prove there really is racism against whites in the gov't are left with egg on their faces holding the bag of crap they brought to the table to make their own point.

Uggh

there are days when I am ashamed of some of my fellow americans.

today... in this thread... reading this stuff and what was said versus the real story?

today I am ashamed of you people. I know you are not ashamed of what you've done here to slander this woman, but she had a life and a job. Now she has been smeared and she is unemployed.

sickening and repulsive

 

[BostonPirate]

And one other point, while i'm full of indignation...

I am sure the repblicans that are dead set against gay rights in every way are really enjoying seeing how they have caused so much mischeif within the democratic ranks through their dishonest lies and slanderously editted video.

I think whomever edited the thing needs to be brought to civil court for damages. In the end, SHE was not given due process, tried in the press, and branded racist for something she didn't even do.

she was trying to help the very people that fucked her over.

apalling

 

[palemale]

Don't expect any mea culpas from the conservative Republicans or Obama haters on here. Character assassination, false and misleading propaganda and deception are their mother's milk, without which the modern conservative movement could not survive.

 

[BostonPirate]

Don't expect any mea culpas from the conservative Republicans or Obama haters on here. Character assassination, false and misleading propaganda and deception are their mother's milk, without which the modern conservative movement could not survive.

I am learning that quickly.

 

[NickCole]

You are right. I am saying something more. I left something unsaid that may clarify my position. What I left unsaid was a description of the alternative to our understanding of systemic racism. The alternative is the notion that racism is simply another word for prejudice which is held and instantiated only be individuals. In this model, society as a whole cannot possibly be racist; only individuals can be racist. I suppose one could be a little bit racist or a whole lot racist and perhaps even racism-free, but it is seen as specific to individuals.

Likewise this alternative individual model views racism as a uniform phenomenon. Its manifestation is always mere prejudice against another race regardless of its relation to its social structural context. If a black person is prejudiced against white folk, it is not qualitatively different from a white person being prejudiced against black folk. Those individuals are each exhibiting racism. Racism becomes virtually synonymous with raced-based prejudice of every sort.

I am distinguishing a social model over against an individual model because, as I have asserted on a number of occasions elsewhere, there really is no such thing as an individual. There are only people within a network of relations within social groups. I call this 'being embedded.' This is the conceptual foundation for my narrow definition of racism as supporting the racial power-relation of its time. Right now white folk still enjoy a hegemony in our American society. It has been modified and qualified over the past hundred and fifty years, but it has by no means been eradicated. Thus, a racist black person's prejudice is identical in its valorization to that of a white person. The racist black identifies with the white folk and seeks to maintain his status by supporting the status quo. He exhibits the same anti-black preferences shared by his racist white counterparts.

People of minority races may adopt attitudes or use tactics that exhibit a mirror image of racism narrowly defined. It may take the form of adopting or projecting victimhood out of proportion to particular situations. It may take the form of calling attention to racial differences as motivations for actions that may bear only tangential relationship to the actual motivations (playing the 'race card'). Posing double-bind questions to facilely demonstrate a racism stronger than it may actually be in a given person or situation. The individual model would label all this 'reverse racism' and have done with it. The social model would see it as a tactical reversal that aims at recentering. Rather than being racism as such, it is a use of prejudicial tactics to subvert the inequities of the status quo.

All this really is more than a simplistic observation that racism exists. Of course, we all agree that something called 'racism' exists, but what it designates is very different in the two models. When I say that I believe that you and palemale agree about the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem, I am saying that I believe that the three of us are all speaking within the context of relatively small variations of what I have named the social model.

I hope this clarifies.

It's an interesting theory about racism, and the individual's identity in the context of society, but no it does not clarify what it is you think palemale and I agree about.

I wish you would be plainly specific in the context of the discussion I had with palemale, from which you appeared to conclude that we agreed about something -- because I really would like to know what you saw.

 

[construct]

It's an interesting theory about racism, and the individual's identity in the context of society, but no it does not clarify what it is you think palemale and I agree about.

I wish you would be plainly specific in the context of the discussion I had with palemale, from which you appeared to conclude that we agreed about something -- because I really would like to know what you saw.

Here you go.

What I see as agreement is the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem in which all of us, by necessity, participate.

I really do not think I can be any clearer than that.

And besides, I said I wasn't about to take on the role of a mediator, and here I am acting like I am one. Perhaps it would be better to view my lengthy posts as an independent interposition of my own views. Particularly relevant to this discussion might be the references to revealed racism and backlash.

 

[NickCole]

Here you go.

What I see as agreement is the broad picture of racism as a systemic problem in which all of us, by necessity, participate.

I really do not think I can be any clearer than that.

Unless there is agreement about what constitutes "participate" on the part of blacks, and between palemale and myself there notably has not been, the only thing that says is that palemale and I agree that racism exists.

And as I've pointed out, that's like agreeing grass is green.

Well that's disappointing; I thought for a moment palemale and I agreed about something substantive and I just couldn't see it.

And besides, I said I wasn't about to take on the role of a mediator, and here I am acting like I am one.

I asked you to be specific about what you claimed to have seen that palemale and I agreed about, not to mediate anything. I don't need a mediator, but I sure do want to know if I miss something substantive.

 

[construct]

Unless there is agreement about what constitutes "participate" on the part of blacks, and between palemale and myself there notably has not been, the only thing that says is that palemale and I agree that racism exists.

And as I've pointed out, that's like agreeing grass is green.

Well that's disappointing; I thought for a moment palemale and I agreed about something substantive and I just couldn't see it.





I asked you to be specific about what you claimed to have seen that palemale and I agreed about, not to mediate anything. I don't need a mediator, but I sure do want to know if I miss something substantive.

Well, yes. What I have explained in recap is that there are two models of racism grounded to two very different understandings of the 'self' and its relation to its social context. I have explained at some length (for a message board) that relationship as it is understood in the model I believe the three of us share. There are some differences at particular points, most notably in the discussion of how the racist response toward efforts to recenter or shift the web of power-relations is to be conceptualized--whether as revealing a previously hidden reserve of hostility in maintaining the status quo or as provoking new responses toward maintaining the status quo. In actuality, it is both, but expressions tend to emphasize one or the other as more important. My own approach emphasizes the former. Yours emphasizes the latter. palemale (and BostonPirate (I wasn't ignoring his post by not citing it specifically)) give more importance to the latter conceptualization, but their analysis minimizes the prejudicial strategies of marginalized communities by quantitative comparison. In fact, their expressions appear to be closer to your emphases than they are to my own, at least at that particular point.

Now I recognize that you never asked for a mediator. Nevertheless, I came to feel that I had taken on (without being asked to do so) that role which I was attempting to avoid. This is why I think it is better to view my observations about the dynamics of racism in America more as as expression of my own viewpoints with passing reference to the point of contention rather than as a direct reconciliation or dialectical synthesis of that conflict. In other words, I really do see the differences as quantitative rather than qualitative, and I also believe that it is a very minor point compared to the broad areas of agreement within the social model, especially once the individual model has been articulated and compared.

With that, I will return you all to your original discussion of the NAACP's condemnation of the Tea Party's racism and the responses to it.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think people need to go back and read this thread and consider now, in light of what has happened to MS Sharrod, and reconsider some things that they said.

the member who used her as an example became the unwitting participant in a very ugly slur campaign begun by people who mean to do the gay community and our nation harm.

To disagree and ask for slow consideration was "Typical" and dismissed.

yet as time progressed we see just how wrong you were nickole. Your hard ass attack crap wound up slamming this woman, who was the polar oposite of what you used her as an example of. You think you are all knowing and you can read hearts and minds, yet, in this thread it is apalling just how wrong you actually were.

She was the person who was teaching her colleagues to look beyond color, yet your prejudice against her blinded you to that posiblilty.

And I didn't even say she was right or wrong... all I wanted was to wait for all the facts.

Your zeal to prove her racism showed your prejudice. You simply couldn't imagine a scenario in which a black woman would say to other black people at a NAACP meeting that color was not important and that all people deserved to be helped regardless of their color.

You couldn't imagine a world in which a black woman would help a white farmer.

welcome to this world, nickole.

I will post the poor white farmers whose farm she actually saved, that are referenced in her video and let them tell you why you are wrong about her and probably a whole lot of other people.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUcH0ABKDII[/ame]

since I don't think it is within you to admit that you were wrong, and I was waiting here to read you post it, I have done so on your behalf.

Nickole... I am challenging you to look beyond the sterotypes that you have in your head that you use to judge not only this one person but so many of us and to tone down the rhetoric and get hold of the hostility. a closed mind cannot grow.

 

[NickCole]

I think people need to go back and read this thread and consider now, in light of what has happened to MS Sharrod, and reconsider some things that they said.

the member who used her as an example became the unwitting participant in a very ugly slur campaign begun by people who mean to do the gay community and our nation harm.

I was not a participant in any kind of campaign for or against anybody.

That video was part of a current event unfolding nationwide, which both the White House and NAACP involved themselves in, and the reason I posted it, as is clear by the context, was as an example in the discussion between palemale and myself about black prejudice against whites. I posted it because what I had been saying had suddenly become exhibit A in a national news story. It was, and remains, germaine to the point I made in that discussion.

To disagree and ask for slow consideration was "Typical" and dismissed.

Palemale's immediate response after I posted the clip made excuses for the audience reaction rather than addressing what can be heard, and what you responded was irrelevant to what the video revealed that I related to the discussion between palemale and myself.

What she says in that video, what she describes of her own thoughts and action, is what speaks to the point I was making, that many blacks have a prejudice against whites. Ms Sherrod tells that story to reveal that she DID have a prejudice against whites, and the audience of blacks clearly understands and relates to her describing the prejudice she had.

yet as time progressed we see just how wrong you were nickole.

What I heard and what I described was and remains spot-on.

Your hard ass attack crap wound up slamming this woman, who was the polar oposite of what you used her as an example of.

I don't see where I slammed her (show me with a verbatim quote), and her prejudicial attitude towards whites was, by her own description, exactly what I intended as example.

You think you are all knowing and you can read hearts and minds, yet, in this thread it is apalling just how wrong you actually were.

I was spot-on.

The whole point of Ms Sherrod's speech, and she says she's given others in the same vein, is that black prejudice against whites is a big enough problem that speeches to black audiences about it are, in her opinion, necessary, and that there's value in discovering that black prejudice against whites is wrong. And in fact the full video further clarifies that her whole point supports the point I've been making. It's revealing about you that you can't see that, and instead choose to post this silliness.

She was the person who was teaching her colleagues to look beyond color, yet your prejudice against her blinded you to that posiblilty.

Not at all. At the end of the video clip she says, "That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have and not so much about white and black; it IS about white and black but, you know, it opened my eyes ..." Not only wasn't I blinded to the possibility that she was speaking about growth out of prejudicial thinking, it was part of the context that made her description of her own prejudice against whites all the more potent and relevant to the discussion.

And I didn't even say she was right or wrong... all I wanted was to wait for all the facts.

The facts of her prejudice against whites and the audience reaction, which was the reason I posted the video as example for palemale, were all there in her own words. Nothing since that video came out has changed the truth of what she reveals in that video I posted that spoke to my point.

Your zeal to prove her racism showed your prejudice.

I never tried to prove her racism, much less with zeal.

You simply couldn't imagine a scenario in which a black woman would say to other black people at a NAACP meeting that color was not important and that all people deserved to be helped regardless of their color.

You couldn't imagine a world in which a black woman would help a white farmer.

Your fantasies about what I can and cannot imagine reveal your own thinking, not mine.

welcome to this world, nickole.

I will post the poor white farmers whose farm she actually saved, that are referenced in her video and let them tell you why you are wrong about her and probably a whole lot of other people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUcH0ABKDII

since I don't think it is within you to admit that you were wrong, and I was waiting here to read you post it,

You say you have me on Ignore and yet you keep proving that you do not.

I have done so on your behalf.

That's so you.

And it has nothing to do with me.

Nickole... I am challenging you to look beyond the sterotypes that you have in your head that you use to judge not only this one person but so many of us and to tone down the rhetoric and get hold of the hostility. a closed mind cannot grow.

As you know that I know, because I've pointed it out in ways you can see, I know you are not a truthful person. About yourself and about what you do.

And as Virginia Woolf said, "If you do not tell the truth about yourself, you cannot tell the truth about other people."

Put your house in order; it would change your life to the better.

 

[palemale]

It makes sense.

She said what she said, it's right on the video.

She resigned when it became public.

The NAACP named her actions shameful and the reaction from many in the audience disturbing.

And those who are unable to recognize the truth of the situation reveal a lot about themselves in so doing.

It makes sense.

This seems like a pretty zealous affirmation of what you consider to be her racism and the racism of the audience. Saying those people "unable to recognize the truth of the situation," i.e. that Sherrod's actions were shameful and the audience actions disturbing, revealed a lot about themselves. YOU were the one who was "unable to recognize the truth of the situation."

That you are unable to simply admit you were wrong to rely on a right-wing smear video of an innocent woman speaks volumes about you.

 

[NickCole]

This seems like a pretty zealous affirmation of what you consider to be her racism and the racism of the audience.

That interpretation's in YOUR mind and those are YOUR words, not my intent or my words.

I never said she's racist or that the audience is.

Saying those people "unable to recognize the truth of the situation," i.e. that Sherrod's actions were shameful and the audience actions disturbing, revealed a lot about themselves. YOU were the one who was "unable to recognize the truth of the situation."

I accepted what Ms Sherrod said in that video as truth, exactly as she said it. And what she says in the edited video is not changed by the context revealed in the full video; if anything it's only made more potent. Unless she was lying, I recognized the truth of the situation just fine.

Sherrod's thinking and her actions, as she describes them in that video, were shameful and the audience's reaction to what she described was disturbing. Not that I found it at all surprising; as I'd written earlier in this thread I already knew about black prejudice against whites. I also know about white prejudice against blacks, and racism, and I've written about that before as well.

That you are unable to simply admit you were wrong to rely on a right-wing smear video of an innocent woman speaks volumes about you.

Sherrod describes her own prejudice against whites and how it manifested in her thoughts and action. She was brave to recognize it, change it, and speak to black audiences about it. That video, which presented her own words describing her own thoughts and actions, did not smear her and I did not smear her, the only things that did were actions like the Obama Administration forcing her to resign the way they did, which impled a conclusion about her that was unfair and erroneous.

 

[palemale]

Your intellectual dishonesty is no longer particularly surprising, and as I said to BostonPirate, no mea culpas would be forthcoming from those, like you, who participated in smearing Sherrod. Of course, you have no shame, which is why your intellectual dishonesty in this instance is not surprising.

I never said she's racist or that the audience is.

Oh really? You said Sherrod explains her attitude about helping white farmers and that the audience appears to approve? What is her attitude? What is it you thought the audience approved of? Your post was about black prejudice against whites. Are you saying that they were prejudiced, but not racist? These are your words, not mine.

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. (They 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.

You also cast doubt on Ms. Sherrod's claim that her comments were misconstrued when you asked why she resigned. So, you say you did not smear her. Yet, you call her and the audience prejudiced and imply that you did not believe her statement that her comments were misconstrued. And your basis for this belief is a selectively edited video that completely distorts Sherrod's message and the audience's attitudes. That is intellectually dishonest. You say Sherrod is brave to own up to her earlier prejudice and her changed views. Maybe you ought to show a little of the same bravery. It wouldn't kill you.

 

[BostonPirate]

Don't count on it. Nick is the kind of guy that would lie to his mother to win an arguement.

 

[NickCole]

Your intellectual dishonesty is no longer particularly surprising, and as I said to BostonPirate, no mea culpas would be forthcoming from those, like you, who participated in smearing Sherrod. Of course, you have no shame, which is why your intellectual dishonesty in this instance is not surprising.

I never smeared Ms Sherrod. And you've provided nothing indicating I did.

Oh really? You said Sherrod explains her attitude about helping white farmers and that the audience appears to approve? What is her attitude? What is it you thought the audience approved of?

The attitude and action she describes of herself "the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer" is reluctance to help a white farmer in distress who she's charged to assist. And she explains it's as a result of the way she interprets his "taking a long time talking" as "he was trying to show me he was superior to me," despite there being no indication of that from anywhere but her own mind. Her interpretation that he was trying show his superiority over her is informed not by anything she knows about that particular white farmer but by her prejudice against whites. That's how a prejudice works, it can distort interpretation of what one sees and hears. The audience reaction is of understanding what she's saying, approval, and agreeing with her interpretion, most notably when she says, "he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing" and someone in the audience can be heard saying "that's right."

In fact she didn't know that he was trying to show he was superior to her, she knew nothing about him and the only thing she had to base her "knowing" on was her own preconception of whites. Nothing she or that white farmer said later indicate he believes he's superior to her, so her interpretation of his "taking a long time talking" is clearly a result of her own prejudice against whites and their motives in things like taking a long time talking.

Your post was about black prejudice against whites. Are you saying that they were prejudiced, but not racist? These are your words, not mine.

I saw and heard no evidence that either Ms Sherrod or anybody in the audience was racist.

You also cast doubt on Ms. Sherrod's claim that her comments were misconstrued when you asked why she resigned.

I did not imply doubt about Ms Sherrod's claim. I asked a question. A reasonable question. If someone made public a video of me that misconstrued something I said, I wouldn't resign over it, I'd explain what I really meant. It was reasonable to wonder: if her words were misconstrued then why didn't she explain what was misconstrued and remain in her job, what was the reason for her resignation? What prompted her to resign? As it turned out the reason was harrassment from the Obama Administration.

So, you say you did not smear her. Yet, you call her and the audience prejudiced and imply that you did not believe her statement that her comments were misconstrued.

What she described of her own thoughts and action were the result of a prejudiced viewpoint, that's the point she ultimately makes, and the audience reaction as she's describing the prejudiced thoughts and action mirrored what hers were back during the episode she describes.

I did not imply I didn't believe her statement. I asked why she resigned, a reasonable question that implies nothing except that her saying her words were misconstrued begs the question why did she resign.

And your basis for this belief is a selectively edited video that completely distorts Sherrod's message and the audience's attitudes.

It does not distort Ms Sherrod's description of her prejudice and how it impacted her thinking and actions in her initial encounter with the white farmer, nor does it distort the audience response as she's describing her thinking and actions during that time, which supports the point I've made about black prejudice against whites and that was the reason I posted it.

 

[BostonPirate]

nick... you are right in that there is prejudice of every sort within every community.

Ms Sherrod was not one of those people and even though I asked to slow down and get all the facts before vilifying her, you slammed me instead and went full steam ahead.

its all there in black and white... pages of the stuff.

why can't you just say you were suckered in by the Obamahaters and bashed an innocent woman without checking the source of your information?

 

[NickCole]

nick... you are right in that there is prejudice of every sort within every community.

I never said that and I do not believe it's true.

What you wrote there is an ObamaNation conceit, which seeks to absolve one of bad or destructive choices by pretending ridiculous absolutes like "there is prejudice of every sort within every community." That's just an absurd assertion.

Ms Sherrod was not one of those people and even though I asked to slow down and get all the facts before vilifying her, you slammed me instead and went full steam ahead.

I never vilified her, and what she said in the video I posted is as solid a support for my point today as it was the day I posted it.

its all there in black and white... pages of the stuff.

Sure is.

why can't you just say you were suckered in by the Obamahaters and bashed an innocent woman without checking the source of your information?

Because that wouldn't be the truth.