Two posts on the Sherrod mess
Both well-written, both offering cogent summaries of key aspects of the case.
Amy Davidson’s Two Minutes in Georgia, from the New Yorker blog, is superb:
The most obvious aspect of the Shirley Sherrod affair is its shabbiness. How many minutes do you spare before deciding to destroy someone’s life? It would be nice if the answer to that question were a number greater than two. In March, Sherrod, the director of rural development for the Department of Agriculture in Georgia, gave a speech at a local N.A.A.C.P. Dinner. It was about forty-three minutes long. A few days ago, Andrew Breitbart posted and publicized a clip from the speech. (Who is Andrew Breitbart? See Rebecca Mead’s New Yorker Profile for more on that.) The clip was two minutes—long enough for N.A.A.C.P. officials to condemn her, and for frightened Department of Agriculture officials to call Sherrod on her cell phone and demand that she resign. She says that the final call came when she was driving, and that she was told to pull over and end her career before she even got where she was going.
It’s the pull-over-and-resign-now incident that really gets me. If you’ve ever been wrongfully accused of something, you know that what’s worse than the initial accusation is when people who ought to know better—or who should at least be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt—believe it.
As for the false accusations against Sherrod and the breathtaking dishonesty of Andrew Breitbart, Davidson’s summary is elegant:
It’s not just a matter of quotes being taken out of context (although there is that). The two-minute clip Breitbart ran is introduced with this text: “Ms Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing a billion dollars… She discriminates against people due to their race.” And here’s Breitbart’s description of the action:
This federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
No, she doesn’t. She tells the story of how, twenty-three years ago, she initially assumed that a white farmer, with the law on his side, unlike a black farmer, didn’t need much help beyond being put in the hands of a white lawyer; when she realized that he did, she sprang into action, and saved his farm. She says that God put the farmer in her path to show her what her full mission was: helping poor rural people of all races. (This was during the farm-foreclosure crisis of the eighties.) She was not an “executive bureaucrat” then, and the whole thing had nothing to do with “federal duties” or “a billion dollars.” And anyone who saw even a couple of minutes more of the video would know it. Surely, whoever put the clip together did.
Breitbart, of course, is a toad; whether he’s a mentally deranged toad, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, is unclear (though I daresay Sully would know about that sort of thing).
But it’s the reaction of the Obama administration that is so disheartening. Archie Bland explains why, in The Obama administration’s most unlikeable moment yet:
Now, one obvious fact to emerge from this is that the conservative blogosphere, and its allies in the media, are not especially careful about who they hurt in pursuit of a political scalp that will hurt the Obama administration. But that’s so obvious as to be barely worth noting. No one will be especially surprised to learn that Bill O’Reilly issued a swift call for Sherrod’s resignation, or that Breitbart’s most salient comment after the full facts emerged was that he “could care less about Shirley Sherrod.” Indeed, as this Washington Post story makes clear, Fox News was far from the biggest villain of the piece.
What’s much more striking and worrying is the way the Democratic administration and its allies acted. Sherrod was called three times in the same day by Agriculture Department officials urging her to resign; she was told that she had to quit immediately because the row was “going to be on Glenn Beck tonight”. Nor did the NAACP try to contact Sherrod before issuing a ruthless condemnation designed to put as much distance between the organisation and the story as possible. The reason for all this, of course, is that establishment liberals in America are utterly terrified of the brutality of the right-wing media, and will do whatever necessary to cut off those attacks before they happen – including throwing one of their own under the bus.
What a distressing lesson in the realities of public discourse in America. There’s been plenty of evidence before that the Obama administration is ruthless to the point of being callous when stories of this sort arise, that they’re petrified at the slightest whiff of a story about black-on-white racism, but this is just a different league of awful. I have never liked the president less.
37 Responses to “Two posts on the Sherrod mess”
-
monchichipox says:
You’ve sure got the being accused of something you didn’t do part and how it hurts correct. Years ago I was accused of stealing a coffee mug from a coworker. A COFFEE MUG. And years ago. When I think about it it still smarts.
And that’s such a trivial ridiculous thing. So I truly feel for this woman.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am EST -
bluelyon says:
As I wrote last night, the Obama administration didn’t even do what one would have expected from the lowliest HR specialist.
Resignation by Blackberry?
-
Angie says:
She was treated horribly and should have at least given a chance to defend herself before being dismissed like she was. I can’t prove it but I bet if she had been a man things wouldn’t have gone down the way they did, there would have at least been an investigation or a chance for him to explain. To me the Obama administration is the bigger villian here — they are the ones who are sworn to uphold the Constitution (which includes the due process this woman was denied).
That said I find it terrible that she ever thought some people
didn’t need her help based on race — granted she saw the
error of her thinking in time — but it is appalling to me that
someone could think that was in 1980s. It has never crossed my mind to treat my clients differently based on race. -
Violet Socks says:
That said I find it terrible that she ever thought some people didn’t need her help based on race — granted she saw the error of her thinking in time — but it is appalling to me that someone could think that was in 1980s.
You have got to be kidding me. The 1980s in rural Georgia? Hell, rural Georgia today?
Shirley Sherrod grew up in the segregated south, her father was murdered by a white man, her cousin was lynched. She spent a good portion of her professional life dealing with the institutional discrimination against black farmers. Why wouldn’t she assume that a white farmer wouldn’t need her help as much as a black farmer?
-
Angie says:
Um, are you kidding me? Do you not see that it is terrible that in the 20th century someone in this society could grow up thinking that way? I’m not saying that she didn’t have her reasons, I think it is terrible that such reasons could exist. I also think that it is all too common for one group to see the wrong by one of the other as reason to condemn all of the other. If a black man killed my father I would not be justified in thinking all black people were bad and the fact is she shouldn’t have felt that way about white people and she admits she was wrong– why are you justifying her? I think you missed the point of her story.
-
Violet Socks says:
Either you’re totally ignorant of American life (particularly in the south) or you’re taking your read on this from right-wingers, or both. You are grossly exaggerating Sherrod’s initial feeling about the white farmer. She didn’t say all white people were evil; she believed that white farmers had it better off than black farmers, she felt a loyalty to her own people, and she was offended by the white farmer’s racist behavior towards her. All of that was completely understandable. Nevertheless, she rose above it all when she realized that poverty was the real problem, that poor rural whites were in the same boat (pretty much) as poor rural blacks, that racism was a divide-and-conquer strategy designed to keep the have-nots fighting each other, and that we’re all united by a common humanity.
That’s the Shirley Sherrod story. Not “ooh, this woman was such a racist — can you imagine? to hate white people like that in the 1980s! How appalling! Thank heavens she finally saw the error of her ways!”
-
spring says:
I agree with Angie, and for the first time in history disagree with something Violet has said. Given that I have never disagreed with Violet before, I surely will think and re-think my disagreement.
But as of now: I find Sherrod’s statements in any context to be disturbing and highly distasteful. I have heard the same excuses of situation made for poor, ignorant and/or suffering others who have issues with, stereotype or discriminate against, or express hatred for Jews, northerners, Americans, Germans, Arabs, women, etc. It’s not cool as an attitude, or as a perception delivered as a conclusion without more that the white farmer was being condescending, or in the deeply-rooted racist belief system and emotions which are only cognitively overcome because of poverty and need (apparently not otherwise). This is the language of exceptions to the rule (we’ve all heard it in other contexts). How she conveyed the story was not at all charming, and that she did not, apparently see that, alarms me to what extent “good judgment” intervened and prevented an expression of that part of the iceberg under the water.
-
sandra s. says:
The mistake that Sherrod made (that Angie is commenting on) is a basic confusion of correlation/causation, of the kind that we pretty much all make on a regular basis. Because race and poverty are highly correlated, Sherrod appears to have made the mistake of assuming that, in Violet’s words, “white farmers had it better off than black farmers”. The fact that she saw past this error in reasoning speaks very highly of her.
The people who heard about this and rapidly tried to distance themselves from her without looking further into the situation were thinking “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” (another correlation/causation error). The tragedy here is that so few of us are like Sherrod, and able to correct these thinking errors.
-
KatherineSpins says:
If a black man killed my father I would not be justified in thinking all black people were bad and the fact is she shouldn’t have felt that way about white people and she admits she was wrong– why are you justifying her?
I think there’s a big difference between justifying an attitude, and understanding where it comes from. I understand why Sherrod initially felt that way about the white farmers – it may not have been justified, but it is understandable.
To compare: I was raped by a middle eastern man in college. I wrestle with it, and I’m not justified in being suspicious of every middle eastern man I meet now. But perhaps you can understand why I am.
-
lambert strether says:
“Resignation by blackberry.” Ouch!
-
AM says:
I agree with you one hundred percent, Violet; to the extent that there shouldn’t even have to be this debate: instead, if it got any attention at all, Ms Sherrod’s speech should be part of an anthology titled perhaps “The Many Paths to Enlightenment”. Many groups have been seriously damaged over long periods of time by permanent establishment ruling groups. Perhaps those whose ancestors weren’t so oppressed just don’t get it. (I speak as someone whose parents grew up in Ireland.)
-
quixote says:
she rose above it all when she realized that poverty was the real problem, that poor rural whites were in the same boat (pretty much) as poor rural blacks, that racism was a divide-and-conquer strategy designed to keep the have-nots fighting each other, and that we’re all united by a common humanity.
That’s the Shirley Sherrod story.
Yeah. Right on.
And the Obama story, one more time, is “Everybody and everything and your dog can all go to hell so long as the media loves me.”
Which makes it all the more chilling that he was just fine with whatshisname-the-fratboy-speechwriter and his Hillary poster.
-
monchichipox says:
Her mistake was to tell a truth from her heart. That will always get you screwed over if you can’t trust who you tell it in front off. She admitted she was human, recognized that what she felt towards the white farmer was wrong, and her work to get over it.
The proof once again is in the pudding. The white farmer coming forward and speaking of their friendship and how she did indeed help them save their farm.
-
Petro says:
Arthur Silber has a typically provocative post feting Ms. Sherrod, offered for your enjoyment:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
(July 22 post, on top as of this writing – it’s hard to get links to specific posts at Arthur’s place…)
And you keep going on with your bad self, Doctor. ;)
-
Sameol says:
She didn’t “have issues with, stereotype, or discriminate against” anyone. She controlled a limited pool of resources, felt they should go to those who needed them most, and believed that the white farmers had many more avenues to obtain help. When she realized they didn’t, she helped them.
-
Briar says:
It’s depressing that the Right’s talking point (oh, she was so evil feeling what she felt back then) dominates part of the discussione even here. She reacted in a very human way to a very deep injustice – and then readjusted her views in a way one might wish to encounter far more often. The big issues here have nothing to do with that. They have to do with the Right’s distortion of what she said and the injustice she suffered at their hands, and at the hands of the Obama adminstration. Despite being in the wrong, the Right still has the initiative and the Democrats are still not getting the condemnation they deserves.
-
funnie says:
The thing that kills me is that Sherrod was right the first time. Black farmers were being discriminated against by the government, and because of that DID need more support.
But now, the right wing is trying to make the Pigford settlement some sordid episode, portraying it as some shady deal, rather than what it is: a VERY HARD-WON acknowledgement from the government that it practiced active discrimination in awarding assistance to black farmers between 1983 and 1997.
Sherrod did her wavering over assisting white farmers – whatever we want to call it – in 1986.
It is appalling that anyone would think to call that discrimination.
It is worse that it is overshadowing (and even undermining!) the recent acknowledgment of what was really going on then.
Settling the Pigford case is one of the best things the Obama administration has been working on.
-
funnie says:
All of which background, obviously, makes Obama’s and Vilsack’s kneejerking here even less excusable. They know the backstory, know what she was up against, and damned well should have listened to her. Could have had another “teachable moment” in race for everyone. Instead, they scraped her like gum off their shoes when they had every reason to know -BEFORE investigating- that it was a cheap sellout.
And now, as a result of being so spineless and scandal-fearful, their actual GOOD agenda item is going to take some very serious hits. It will be treated as MUCH more suspect than if they’d never given these racist right wing clowns the toehold in the first place.
So. Tired. of. this. story.
-
Three Wickets says:
Was white on black racism always going to be the defining political issue of our time, regardless of the Obama campaign and presidency. None of the candidates (including Nader) saw it as an issue in 2000 or 2004. For that matter, in what ways have the Obama campaign and presidency improved the social and economic dynamics of race in the nation. While tea partiers and progressives fight it out over race, the rich get richer and Obama fine tunes his next campaign run.
-
Gramoflanz says:
Here is the hard truth: the white farmers did have it better than black farmers, simply because they were white. Merely being white gains a person significant net worth over blacks, even in 2010.
Before you light your hair on fire, watch this video:
-
Ciccina says:
The Obama administration dumped on Sherrod because she was a nobody (in their judgement). They’ve never treated one of their own that way – Favreau being a prime example. They figured there’d be no penalty for cutting her loose. Who needs due diligence when you’ve got a convenient scapegoat on hand?
Maybe i have a one track mind but what this situation reminded me of was the way the Edwards campaign fired certain female bloggers when crackpot Bill Donohue accused them of being bigots. In both cases the path of least resistance was to accommodate the creepy white guy who had full access to the media and victimize the women who seemingly did not.
Put another way, using Bob Somerby’s terms – Breitbart and Donohue live in the Village; Sherrod and certain female bloggers do not. Keeping up appearances in the Village is always more important than anything having to do with the lives of outsiders.
I’m so glad Sherrod fought back. I’m so glad she demanded a phone call from Obama, and I’m so glad she got it. It means his schedule had to be rejiggered to accommodate the call. Given how ferocious the competition is for every moment of a president’s attention, and how difficult it is to get an apology out of any president, I think she yanked his chain pretty well.
-
Violet Socks says:
Here is the hard truth: the white farmers did have it better than black farmers, simply because they were white.
Yep, you’re right. What Sherrod actually realized was that white privilege was insufficient to protect poor whites from the predatory and uncaring money class—which has always been true. It’s the story of the South.
However, I despair of trying to make this finer point when people are thinking the whole point of the speech is how an appalling racist mended her ways.
-
May says:
Ciccina: Yes, since Sherrod was a woman the men thought there would be no consequences of firing her for no reason.
-
spring says:
What Sherrod actually realized was that white privilege was insufficient to protect poor whites from the predatory and uncaring money class
If she didn’t know that in 1986, even while looking at an individual sitting in front of her, asking for help, then she’s got issues.
Blanket statements implying “all whites” and “all blacks” — twenty years post-Civil Rights Movement? Do we reverse the roles and excuse the poor, suffering antebellum non-plantation-owner whites for the bigotry that arose in connection with their hardships, lack of jobs, ignorance?
Understanding where attitudes come from is one thing; excusing groupism and racism is another. The “poor white farmer” story sounded to me too much like another kind of bigot exception to the rule, e.g. “He’s okay; he’s different, an articulate black man, not really like one of them” kind of thing.
-
funnie says:
My goodness, why do white people have to whine so damn much about being liked. That’s really what spring’s comments come down to, in the end.
It’s not about white people getting an UNFAIR shake, because that wasn’t happening. Again, even poor, marginalized white farmers were getting a better deal, a much better deal, than black farmers were.
It’s really a complaint about how dare black people have the temerity to exhibit “groupism,” as spring puts it, in the face of racism — coupled with the outright delusion that such a practice by black people against white people even constitutes racism. (HA HA HA)
It’s a complaint given an amount of airtime totally out of whack with reality. Really and truly, why DO white people care so damn much about being LIIIKED. Do they want to BE black? Hell no. LIVE in black neighborhoods? Attend black churches? Luxuriate in black employment and educational opportunities? Har dee har. So why is it so important to be LIKED by a group you don’t actually want to belong to – and in fact, kind of enjoy looking down on?
It’s the reverse Groucho Marx, but rooted in the same kind of snobbery. “I’d never want to belong to a club that accepted me as a member” is now “I can no longer console myself with my club’s exclusivity unless the riff-raff are still trying to crash my party!”
I, personally, as a white person, think the ROYAL OUTRAGE over whiteness losing (a portion of) its value is actually kind of hilarious.
I mean, sure, tres bummer, how you can grow up dreaming that YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL — solidly grounded in experiences you had BECAUSE of the color of your skin, of course — only to find out that, in the end, you might end up JUST a plain ol’ woman, and one with an increased risk of melanoma to boot. But, you know. Tough tacos.
And, buck up, we certainly haven’t reached that point yet! Even in a depression, there’s still LOADS of awesome goodies white people – even the ladypart-having ones – can still content ourselves with!! :D
-
quixote says:
spring, forgive me for asking a personal question. How old are you?
Having so little insight at 16 is not hopeless. If you’re in your forties, get help.
-
spring says:
I’m beyond my 40s. And among other things, a lawyer who was practicing civil rights law in the South in 1986. Perhaps you might consider revising your own biases, unwarranted conclusions, and ad hominem style of arguing, Quixote.
-
Swannie says:
The Obama Administration acted stupidly , again …
-
Swannie says:
Also, and I am just guessing here , so please do not mistake my speculation for fact..but I have a feeling that the BO Admin still does not care about Shirley , except at this point they might want her to shut up ;) , but I have a strong feeling that what they really care about, is what they see as a missed opportunity to catch the right wing , Fox News and Andrew B. with their pants down.
I also am thinking these charges from left and right are just the first shots across the bows of ships engaged in the very muddy waters of the November elections battles, -
Violet Socks says:
And among other things, a lawyer who was practicing civil rights law in the South in 1986.
Then surely you know that the USDA was engaged in systemic discrimination against black farmers in the 80s—at the time of the very incident Sherrod narrates.
-
jackyt says:
The most salient factor here is not that Ms. Sherrod’s comment was taken out of context, but that the context of her comments was taken out of context. She was speaking to the NAACP, fergawdsake! She used a personal anecdote to illustrate a point that, perhaps, the C for colored should be replaced by a P for poor. She was challenging a lobbying group for African Americans to rethink their biases. I see that as a courageous stand! Too bad for her that all the “post-racial” posturing was just window dressing. Even here, some are judging “the content of her character” based solely on the “color of her skin”.
-
quixote says:
spring, when your argument has no merit, I can only assume that the person doing the arguing is missing something. We’ve tried showing you where the argument is wrong. You don’t seem interested. Wondering about the person who’s missing the point is different from an ad hominem attack, as you no doubt know if you’re a lawyer.
-
Violet Socks says:
By the way, I edited my response to spring to remove an attempt at heavy sarcasm that was a little too heavy.
-
spring says:
Then surely you know that the USDA was engaged in systemic discrimination against black farmers in the 80s—at the time of the very incident Sherrod narrates.
No. How would one “know” this unless involved on one end or the other of an event, and even then, the individuals involved are not all necessarily aware of prejudice resulting from their having been assigned to a group of some sort (what, e.g. statistical cases are about). The investigations on these cases commenced in the 90s.
Discrimination does not happen to “groups”. It happens to individuals because they are assigned into groups (most of which are arbitrary or artificial), after which, stereotypes, assumptions, and prejudices are applied positively or negatively to them. (The same thing has been done repeatedly in the comments here, placing me into some kind of “white” group, criteria unknown, and assigning traits.)
The goal of anti-discrimination laws isn’t to equalize the well-being of different kinds of collections of people — the ultimately endless categories that we can find into which we can lump individuals. This “shorthand” may serve some valid purposes and be inevitable because of the way our minds think in patterns, and sometimes harmless, such as when used for a sense of belonging, or useful, such as when used as a statistical litmus test of whether individuals indeed are being judged on their own merit. Be this as it may, anti-discrimination laws are not for protecting “groups” — treating this or that arbitrary group “equal” to this or that other arbitrary group — but for protecting individuals.
If Sherrod was attempting to make this point, that for a government purposes, “equal protection” means that individuals should be viewed as such, not by their membership in an arbitrary group, it did not come across that way to me. It sounded, rather, that she merely had identified a “white” subgroup, but otherwise still holds very strong opinions grounded in an “us-them” belief system. In other words, the individual will be considered but only to see if the individual is an exception to the rule, and belongs in a deserving sub-category of the undeserving group.
-
Three Wickets says:
I agree with the point about considering the individual. The content of one’s character not the color of one’s skin speaks to that. Racism and discrimination is motivated by generalization. Does the NAACP speak for all blacks, NOW for all women, AIPAC for all Jews. Issues yes, but generalizing about peoples can be compromising.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
spring, I think you’ve got a few things wrong. RACISM is absolutely about DISCRIMINATING against (a) GROUP(s) of people because of color, religion, gender, etc. It’s NOT about individuals.
And if you weren’t aware of the historical context of the USDA in the 1980s, perhaps you should have read up on what was going on before condemning Ms. Sherrod’s comments.
I suggest you google and read “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh. It may clarify the idea of white privilege. I, as a white person, get extroardinary advantages in life. Not because I am “tinfoil hattie, the individual,” but because I am “tinfoil hattie, WHITE person.” Unearned, unfair.
Post-racial my ass.
-
naomi dagen bloom says:
Often I wonder where commenters live in a literal sense. Geography matters IMHO. Last year I moved from Manhattan to Portland, Oregon.
Both the city and the state have a very, very dark history of racism toward African Americans–also Chinese, Japanese. As a result, black Americans are not drawn to live here. In Portland, known for its liberal thinking, voters went overboard for Obama in last election. There is much hand-wringing about how lives/attitudes might be made fairer locally (police policies, schools).
In the Sunday newspapers on July 25, there are three articles about Shirley Sherrod in the NY Times “News in Review.” In the Oregonian “Opinion” section, not a one.
