Back on Track; Enter the NAACP

After a year off for my first year of law school, things seem to have settled down enough for a few more rantings: even if I am merely ranting to myself. I think that I will start with the NAACP and the breaking story of Shirley Shirrod. I personally feel that Shirley Shirrod is not the real story in this Youtube clip, but since everyone else does I will begin by addressing her. Ms. Shirrod offered her resignation after extreme pressure, she called it harrassment, from the White House following Breitbart breaking this story on thier website. This Fox News story quotes the reasons Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack gave for her forced resignation including: (1) possible controversy would make it impossible for her to do her job, and (2) her comments would make it more difficult to fix civil rights problems in the USDA.

I find it hard to believe that these are the two reasons. Shirley says she was thrown under the bus because of the upcoming elections, but Shirley there are better reasons that she was forced to resign. Shirley stated that the quotes were taken out of context, that she was basically explaining that she used to have the attitude that it was white against black, or that she was racist towards whites, but that this experience helped change her to worrying about poor people. However while attempting to explain her "change" she first states that the white person was trying to show he was superior to her, alluding that the white farmer was acting racially. Then in describing her change she states, "it was revealed to me that is about the poor versus those that have, it's not so much about white .... it IS about white and black, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." If this is supposed to describe the revelation that changed her racist attitude than I think that she needs to go back and get the revelation again because she missed some parts.

Imagine if a white person were to say "it's not so much about black ... it IS about black and white, but its not, you know. Because I took him to one of his own." Is there any doubt that is a racist statement?

I am all for the ability of an individual to change. If you were racist and you are not now, great. I believe people need to be given oppurtunities to change thier minds without being labelled a flip-flopper (which would actually seem to require someone who believes A, to flip to the opposite B, and then flop back to A when it is convenient). There is a difference between a flip-flopper and someone who has genuinely changed position. Of course the problem is discerning who is faking and who is genuine, and the only readily available evidence are the actions of the individual. Ms. Sherrod's words and action denote that her revelation was not nearly as transformitive as she believes, or that she was way more racist then I want to label her in the beginning. In other words, maybe this is a big change for her. She defended herself on CNN, and stated that she is good friends with the white farmers wife.

The real story here is the response from the crowd during her speech. The crowd cheers as she describes her previous racist position. Then, it is unusally silent as describes her revelation. The NAACP has been attacking the Tea Party Movement for supposed racist comments and signs. The organization has called for Tea Party Movement leaders to condemn racist elements within the Tea Party, however, there is no evidence of these racist elements. Breitbart has gone so far as to offer a $100,000 reward for anyone that can produce an authentic picture of a sign or recording of speech at a Tea Party event that is racist, and so far the reward in uncollect.

Brietbart told CNN that the purpose of the story was to illustrate the racists attitudes within the NAACP, not to get Sherrod fired. The NAACP initially rebuked Sherrod and then retracted the rebuke later today stating that it had been misled by the conservative media and unfavorable clips, but having few the whole thing it was not actually racist.