Knee jerk jerks — or, the current state of racism in America

By now, we’re all familiar with the Sherrod story.  Andrew Breitbart was sent an edited video that made it look as if Sherrod was boasting to an NAACP gathering about denying government aid to white farmers.  The audience laughed complicitly when Sherrod made that confession.

Breitbart held onto that video clip until the NAACP announced that, in the absence of any evidence showing Tea Party racism, it was going to denounce Tea Party racism.  In the face of the NAACP’s knee jerk attack to policies with which it disagrees, Breitbart published the video.

It turned out, though, that Breitbart might have been knee jerking it too, since the video turned out to be part of a longer presentation during which Sherrod had confessed that she had abandoned her old racist ways.  To the extent that he was trying to highlight NAACP conduct, not Sherrod’s, Breitbart still had a point with that knowing laughter the audience gave during Sherrod’s confession.  Be that as it may, it looked as if Breitbart owed Sherrod an apology.

Interestingly, the NAACP was so panicked by the video — despite the fact that it had the entire speech in its possession — that it immediately denounced Sherrod.  This was yet another example of knee jerk idiocy, giving the NAACP two knee jerk points, the first for attacking the Tea Party, and the second for trying to disassociate itself from Sherrod before taking 15 minutes to get the facts.

The Obama administration also went into knee jerk mode, explicitly claiming fear of Fox and Glenn Beck.  Without bothering to investigate, it humiliated and then fired Sherrod.  When the whole video transcript came out, the administration had to engage in a massive belly crawl to Sherrod.  No surprise here.  Almost two years of Obamaness has shown us that the administration is focused on its goals, but a little hazy on the details.

Obama himself went into knee jerk mode when he castigated Secretary Tom Vilsack for acting “stupidly.” While this was almost certainly true, it was a bad choice of words for Obama who, as you may recall, went into knee jerk mode when, after admitting he knew nothing, he nevertheless castigated Cambridge police officers for acting “stupidly” with regard to the Henry Louis Gates arrest.  I’m pretty sure that Obama, if pressed, would describe most people around him as stupid, but that’s another story for another day.

Up until this morning, I would have said that the only person who came out of this little race incident in America was Sherrod.  While she has confessed that she was once a racist, she had announced publicly, in a slightly confused but heart-wrenching speech, that she was no longer.  For her honesty and remorse, she had wrongly been embarrassed and punished for confessing her sins. 

Except that this narrative is not true.  It turns out that, remorseful confession notwithstanding, Sherrod is still a race sinner, whose default, knee jerk setting is to cry racism.  Check it out.  She’s no rose and she’s not repentant.  When push comes to shove, Sherrod is every bit as bad as the rest of them.

Race in America is poisonous, not because most Americans are racists, but because the Left believes that most Americans are racists.  I am reminded of Maria Van Trapp’s autobiography, which I read decades ago.  Before she fell into the hands of the “good” nuns, the ones who achieved Hollywood fame, Maria was sent to a school run by fairly sadistic nuns.  These nuns beat the children daily on the principle that children were inherently evil and, whether or not one caught them making mischief, one could assume that they had made mischief, so they should be punished accordingly.

My father had a similar experience with nuns back in Berlin in 1924, when he was 5.  His mother, who was not bright, meant to leave him for a week with a Jewish charity while she had to go away.  Lord alone knows how, but she managed to leave him with a group of nuns in the same building.  They too beat him, and all the other little ones, daily.

Both Maria and my father had the exact same response to the experience of all punishment, no crime:  They concluded that, if they were going to be beaten for being bad, whether or not they had, in fact, been bad, they might as well be bad.  At least then the beating would have meaning and maybe they’d have some fun along the way.

If you constantly castigate honorable Americans as racists, they will eventually confirm to your standards.  That’s all.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    “The audience laughed complicitly when Sherrod made that confession.”

    “To the extent that he was trying to highlight NAACP conduct, not Sherrod’s, Breitbart still had a point with that knowing laughter the audience gave during Sherrod’s confession. ”

    I think Bookworm is mistaken about that.  What follows is a copy-and-paste of a comment I left at Althouse on this topic:


    OK, go and carefully watch and listen to the smoking-gun video that started this whole thing, here [that was a link to the original Big Hollywood post].

    1. In the opening seconds the text appearing on the screen says in so many words that she admits to currently discriminating against people in her current USDA job:

    “On March 27, 2010, while speaking at the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet … Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing a billion dollars … She discriminates against people due to their race.”

    It’s been pretty well proven, I think, that that’s simply false. But we’ve heard that’s not the point anyway, the point is the reaction of the crowd, laughing and applauding her remarks, showing the crowd’s racism if not Ms. Sherrod’s.

    2. Except that doesn’t work either. Watch and listen to the video, carefully. Starting at around 0:32, one person says “That’s right, that’s right” when Ms. Sherrod says the white farmer was trying to show he was superior to her. Then at around 0:40, she says “but he had to come to me for help,” and a few people nod their heads and murmur something that I at least cannot make out. She gets a laugh from the crowd right around 0:50 with “while he was trying to show he was superior to me, I was deciding how much help I was going to give him.” Might have been some race-based animus in that, but it’s also possible it was a response to a more generic set-up of someone acting arrogant about to get his comeuppance.

    And that’s it. I honestly cannot find another instance of laughter, or head-nodding, or any other sort of agreement or approval, including when she says so many black people had lost their farm and here I was having to help a white man. Not a peep. Same with “I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do,” around 1:05. Not a peep. I don’t think the alternative explanation works either. Really — where is the audience showing approval when she relates what she had done to the white farmer 24 years earlier? It ain’t there.

    I don’t disagree with the much of the balance of Bookworm’s post here (but, e.g., I do not believe most Americans will become racists, eventually or otherwise, as a response to repeated false accusations to that effect), but this “audience laughing in affirmation” thing has attained the status of received wisdom in a matter of three days when it’s really just, at best, an urban myth.

  2. SADIE says

    Recipe for Knee Jerk-y Beef [not kosher] with or without videos
     
     
    Ingredients:
     
     
    (1) can post racial president
    (3) mugs of beer
    (1) JournoList [see below for special sauce]
     
     
    Sprinkle generously the following:
     
    Rev. Wright sermons
    NAACP denouncements
    New Black Panther Pepper
    Accusations
     
     
    Optional spices for a Tex-Mex Taste:
     
    DOJ
     
     
    Special Sauce for JournaList requires 400 grams of salt on a wound, simmer and stir continually for a minimum of 18 months.

  3. suek says

    Book…you give the impression that nuns being sadistic is a fact of life – at least of the period.  I don’t think so.  It might be a trait of the Germanic upbringing, but not necessarily of the catholic convent practice…
     
    I suspect that the typical upbringing of the period might be considered sadistic today.  In fact, it’s odd – I had a college roommate who expressed exactly the same philosophy “I’m going to get spanked anyway, so I’ll just figure if I think it’s worth it, and then do it or not”.
     
    Also “beaten daily” might also translate to “spanked” daily…which _could_ be the same thing, but is not necessarily the same thing.

  4. suek says

    Mr.Johnston…
     
    I listened to the tape.  I heard “Mmmhmmms” and “alright”…
     
    Maybe what you call murmuring, I call “Mmmmhmmm” which is acceptance and approval.
     
    I disagree with you. I believe I heard low toned polite “knowing” assent to her comments about her racist actions.

  5. says

    Suek:
     
    Fair enough.  We just saw and heard it differently.
     
    I do think there was stone silence when she recounted what she actually did with the white farmer (i.e. try to discern any affirmation in the crowd in response to “I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do.”)  The “murmurs,” which were simply illegible to me, were in any case in response to the “acting superior” and “had to come to me for help” lines, that is to say to the stage-setting and not to the actual confessions of racist behavior.  I guess I am not able to discern from the crowd’s reaction any big endorsement of racism.  Just as the racism accusations against tea partiers were slanderous, I think the current interpretations of the crowd’s reaction here are at best ungenerous and are unfair.  And they paint with a broad brush, attributing to everyone in the room the perceived responses of a few.  Again, similarly to the defamation aimed at the tea party folks.
     
    Had quite a time over at Althouse, though, conversing with people who insisted there was “cheering” from the crowd.

  6. socratease says

    I think declaring everyone a racist (or, at least, every white man is a racist) is an easy justification for the leftist program.  It lets you justify quotas, affirmative action, slander like Sherrod’s or that from JournoList, vote stealing like Acorn’s, etc.  In other words, it’s a handy dispensation for allowing leftists to bash their opponents and violate their professed ethics without qualm and while staying perfectly self-righteous in their own mind.
    This is similar to the post-modernist philosophy that has swept through ivory tower institutions which claims that there is no truth, simply competing power structures that enforce their own version of “truth” for their own advantage.  By declaring the world a cesspool completely lacking in moral absolutes, they can happily re-write history, warp scientific progress, re-interpret written laws, refuse to enforce what they’ve sworn to uphold, etc., and, when caught at it, simply pass it off as “everyone does it”.  By denying anyone has any morality, it makes their own immorality justifiable, allowing them to do whatever they want to seize and hold power because it’s what everyone does.  Of course, even to the extent the theory is true, it’s a destructive one to live by, since it only leads to a race to the bottom and a society where might makes right, the opposite of what the advancement of civilization is supposed to accomplish.  Even if moral absolutes are imaginary, acting as if they are real and striving to achieve them is the only way that human society can advance.

  7. Gringo says

    Race in America is poisonous, not because most Americans are racists, but because the Left believes that most Americans are racists.
    Of course, no one on the Left believes there are any racists in the Left. This is part of the lib/leftist group identity that they are oh-so-superior and so much more enlightened than the knuckle-dragging troglodytes that disagree with the left. It also seems to me that libs are much more concerned with belonging to the SUPERIOR group, to the cool guys. It is really important to libs that libs are britghter, better educated, more tolerant, et al et al than the other side of the aisle.
     
    Regarding any attribute, such as educational level, ethnocentrism, or eye color, I take the view that there are others who have such attributes in greater or lesser quantities than I do- on both sides of the political aisle. Perhaps because I experienced negative group labeling in my childhood, I resist being labeled as a group. What is important to me is beliefs and points of view held in common, not particular attributes of others.
     
    It seems to me that the vast majority of those playing the R-card in the last two years have been libs of the Caucasian persuasion.  I call it the Chevy Chase approach to race relations” “You’re racist, and I’m not. And this WILL lead to more explosions. I get  teed off -maybe very teed off-  at all these accusations of racism.
     
    [Many lefty blog commenters love to call us " knuckle draggers..troglodytes..cave dwellers.." et al. Some time I will ask one of them: "Would you call a Black any of those terms? What would you call someone who applied those terms to a Black"]
     
     

  8. Wolf Howling says

    Hello Book.  I just did a fairly lengthy post on this.  I think the Sherrod incident has to be seen within the much larger context of the state of race in America and the false charges of racism against a huge swath of Middle America, first by the CBC, then the entire wing of the liberal MSM, and now the NAACP. 
    What happened to Sherrod is perhaps the most striking evidence that the landscape of America is changing literally beneath our feet. When was the last time you saw a left wing organization not merely come down against one of its own for showing something akin to reverse racism, but doing so as a knee jerk reaction. Indeed, normally, such remarks are studiously ignored or quickly forgiven. Now it seems, within days of slandering a good portion of Middle America as racist, there is apparently a new zero tolerance policy at the NAACP. And when was the last time you saw the Obama administration act with such alacrity to an apparent act of reverse racism? Indeed, there are many in Obama’s administration today who have a history of reverse racism.

    I think it fair to assume that the NAACP knee jerk reaction has its genesis in the push back that they are getting for their scurrilous decision to slime the Tea Party movement as racist. It is equally as reasonable to assume that the decision to fire Sherrod comes from an administration in panic over whites fleeing from the administration like rats from a sinking ship, coupled with real worry about the the very serious charges that they are picking and choosing which laws to prosecute on the basis of race. And I think it fair to assume the articles we are now seeing decrying “racial tension” in America are in surprise and horror that the race card is no longer working the way it has for the last half century.

    The left has suddenly found that they are deeply overdrawn on the race card account. The race card has been a deeply divisive tactic used to distort our body politic for over four decades. The left has lived by the race card; it is fair to forecast that the far left as a serious movement will die by it. . . . 

  9. says

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&feature=player_embedded#at=1472
     
    Look at the 22 to 24 minute mark, plus the area around it, for the goods.
     
    Breitbart did not score a critical hit, the hit he thought he should have scored. But he got an indirect hit. Sherrod is collateral damage. The NAACP is the primary target.
     
    To destroy the NAACP, the overall strategy must be one of insurgency, the brand made by Mao even and not Alinsky. In that vein, making the regime overreact against Sherrod and others, is a good thing. It makes it harder for them to claim legitimacy. Without legitimacy, they will not have the power to suppress the rest of the nation.
    In terms of what the details for this plan is, our first priority is transparency. We need to know what is going on at these NAACP meetings and who is speaking at them, why, and where the money flows.
     
    Breitbart, by introducing a gambit, even though people say that it was a risky and incomplete gambit, got the goods. The goods, what are they? It is the full video. The NAACP or its affiliates should never have released the full video. It was their pure panic reaction to Breit’s attack that made them stupid. Sure, they can spin it with their counter-attackon Breitbart and Fox News, but we have received millions of such attacks. We have NOT received millions of videos concerning internal NAACP activities. Which they have just given us, for all intents and purposes.
     
    It is only with transparency that will allow us to accurately predict enemy movements and strategies, so that we can counter them and defeat the foe. Proper intelligence is a core ingredient to insurgency when you are up against a fortified foe that is part of the occupation forces. To liberate the oppressed, the occupation forces must be defeated.
     
    I mentioned the timestamp because it shows Sherrod making comments about the Tea Party and Healthcare, about how racism was brought out at the time of those events. This is the “reformed racist” people think exists? A reformed racist who sees racism when it suits her NAACP politics. I guess it depends upon what the meaning of racism is.
     
    The NAACP, given what the video presents me, is attempting to shift to a Marxist economic system that exploits poor blacks and poor whites. Race is no longer as profitable as it was. So they are diversifying. They are using the tried and proven Marxist economical model that keeps the money flowing, so long as they self-advertise as the champion of the poor.
     
    The video in the cut off clip starts around 18 MIN.
     
    Sherrod is also involved in some kind of USDA kickback deal for poor farmers. Mostly black farmers. She had gotten some 300k, as part of a settlement with other small time failed farmers.
     
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html
     
    Don’t worry about making mistakes in the war. Just worry that you won’t get adequate intelligence to plan your next move. Right now, Sherrod and the Obama regime has given us plenty of information to digest. And Breitbart’s action is the direct cause of it, mostly. Mistakes will be made when fighting. Just learn to accept it. The objective is to win, however. Winning doesn’t require perfection. Winning simply requires that you achieve your victory conditions while preventing the enemy from achieving theirs.
     
    People constantly worry about things in human conflicts, wars, and battles. Some of the comments I read at Neo-Neocon’s site said that Andrew should apologize and do the full prostratination, because this will “stop the perpetuation of racism by Leftists because it demonstrates we are better than them”.
     
    Total Bull, if you ask me. You demonstrate you are better than your enemies by beating them into submission. Period. Apologies are for the weak. It’s when you don’t want to or can’t fight using force. Killing people and talking to people is not the same thing. People get it confused all the time. Just watch Hollywood movies for an example of popular contamination and ignorance at work. You are either fighting the Left or you’re sipping Tea having a chat with your friends over a non-hostile “political disagreement”.
     
    Generally, I think Wolf has it right that the NAACP and Obama regime are under enormous pressure given historical precedences. They aren’t handling it well. Now is the time to push, to attack, though. They got a good counter-attack off blaming Fox News and Breit Bart, yes, I admit that. Breitbart should not apologize. That would be a strategic mistake. Leave the apologizing for spineless individuals like Steele.
     
    Israel apologized for any number of things the Palestinian media fabricated. You want to see how good that strategy works, go see how many Israeli graves there are due to terrorist attacks. Talk to the families, why dontcha.
     
    The NAACP’s counter-attack is still an action they took based on reacting to our attack. And it’s nice to have the initiative for once in this fight. It would have been ideal if Breit could have scoured NAACp sites to data mine the full video. But decisions in battle often are easy to second guess. Personally, I don’t believe the NAACP is stupid enough to free stream videos of their conferences so that anyone can hear and see the event. No, to get full transparency on enemy operations, you have to force it out of them. Maybe the NAACp already had video of Sherrod up. But why would they, given their secretive knee jerk defensive reactions?
     
    I surmise the full video was only made available due to Breit’s attack. Now I could be wrong, of course, but most people aren’t even asking this question.
     
     

  10. says

    “I believe I heard low toned polite “knowing” assent to her comments about her racist actions.”
     
    The specific story about the white farmer doesn’t contain most of the racism, Suek. You want to watch the rest of the full video, which is some 30-40 minutes long.
     
    There are plenty of racist statements or race implicit assumptions. But to get the real goods, just watch Sherrod on CNN. She might even be on now.

  11. says

    Rush weighs in on a similar situation.
     
    http://www.breitbart.tv/rush-slams-republicans-for-fighting-against-their-own/
     
    Just look at his face. His intensity. He believes, does he not.
     
    A valid criticism of Breitbart is that he could have made his attack better and more comprehensive so that it blew the NAACP, Sherrod, Obama, and USDA up all together. That would be a valid criticism because it a team commitment. What’s not valid are those people out there talking about how Breit should retreat before the Left, make nice with the Left, and how Sherrod is somehow an ally or an innocent civilian.
     
    She is collateral damage. But not from our artillery strike, but from the Left’s. Don’t misunderstand that important part.

  12. JKB says

    Interesting premise.  Even before the video came out, I was thinking that maybe we should just refuse the racism label.  Just refuse to accept it.  Basically just accelerate what is happening, that an accusation of racism no longer has the original impact because misuse has diluted the term.  Only downside is it would give cover to real racists.
     
    Still, even now, if someone accuses you of racism you clarify the definition since the word now has at least two meanings.  Just ask them if they are accusing you of discriminating against someone based on their race with examples or do they just disagree with your opinion.
     
    I wonder if Breitbart made a mistake.  He definitely is in their head as evidenced by the rush by the NAACP and the Obama administration to avoid being ACORNed.  That is, video, denial, more video undermining the denial, etc.  The NAACP and the administration were definitely afraid of what Breitbart might have as a follow-up.  The ACORN videos were definitely bad but the real damage was done by the serial denials repeatedly shown to be lies.  Sherrod was just the speaker, NAACP was the target of the video and they behaved quiet guiltily.  Now we’re moving into the cocky phase with growing attacks on Breitbart.  Are they really sure he doesn’t have more video?

  13. Oldflyer says

    I think the most interesting aspect of the Sherrod episode is the reaction of the Regime and the NAACP.  The Left wants to paint Breitbart as a dishonest provocateur, but the obvious villains are those who took his snippet and went nuclear without any due-diligence whatsoever.
    I have little doubt that Breitbart’s target was the NAACP and not Sherrod.  He did score a hit, whether it was the one he intended or not.  The NAACP has exposed itself  in recent years by its words and deeds.  Breitbart turned a spotlight on one instance.
    There was a discussion at NeoNeocon recently about racism.  A point was made, and I totally agree, that racial prejudices have been endemic throughout history, and are nearly impossible to control if kept private.  Acting on the prejudices in a way that harms others is an all together  different matter.  Those actions can be controlled by society, using a variety of methods.  I maintain that the United States through governmental and private means has made near heroic efforts to control harmful  racially motivated actions.

  14. jj says

    And, as the second half of Book’s post makes plain, perhaps Sherrod was mistreated on the basis of this tape.  However, her comments before, after, during, and even now clearly indicate that while this particular indictment should perhaps be dismissed, she remains indictable.  There seem to be plenty of reasons available to fire her.
     
    The ends do not, however justify the means.  (Or so we keep trying to tell ourselves.)  So apologize, offer the job back, (as has been done), move on to her next set of problems – and fire her.

  15. says

    “Now we’re moving into the cocky phase with growing attacks on Breitbart.  Are they really sure he doesn’t have more video?”
     
    It reminds me of the shadow dance. What some police know as the fundamental reality behind control presence, different from verbal commands in command presence.
     
    Both sides, teams, factions are moving in a social dance, each pretending to the other that they are doing nothing harmful. In reality, both sides are setting the other up for a fatal attack, and each side knows it or should know it by now. But on the surface, everything looks completely socially acceptable or at least can be excused using social concepts of rudeness and “apologies”.
     
    You could say, Oh, Breit’s just rude. Or Sherron’s a racist, not socially acceptable in society. Or Sherron is black, and she can’t be a racist. All of this stuff are the superficial claims. Underneath it all, you have shadow players seeking a critical damag shot on the other. And counting coup when the other side acts in ignorance or overreacts due to fear.
     
    To use a simple physical example, if two people argue and the redheaded stepchild guy doesn’t know how to kill with his barehands but the kinky blond guy does, and the redhead stepchild guy steps in and tries to intimidate the blond guy, the redhead has lost points. Even if the blond guy doesn’t use his advantage, he has counted coup because he tells himself that he could have killed the redhead if he wanted to.
     
     
    Let there be no mistake. The NAACP holds in their hands real lives, past and future. For awhile, people ignored their looting because that was just the cost of business in DC. However, DC has overstepped the boundaries of what Americans and George Washington would tolerate in the corruption and banditry department. Things that the NAACP could get away with, in terms of race and poverty, is now harder to justify.
     
    Whenever you have an advantage, push the attack and place the enemy in full disarray and rout them. The NAACP and Obama knows this to be true and acts upon it. Do Republicans?
     

  16. says

    “The ends do not, however justify the means. ”
     
    It was never the ends that justified the means. It was the other way around. Means can only ever justify a certain end, because some means preclude some ends and some means exist exclusively to lead to a certain end goal.
     
    Once you arrive at the finish line, the end, the justification for your existence and victory is not what you did to get there. What you did, you have done, and cannot change. What justifies the existence of people at the end, is that they are at the end. Nothing else.
     
    The logic that people attempt to use to say that the road they are on is justified by them having already ended up at a certain objective, is erroneous on its face. They are not at the end and they do not know how to get to the end. They only take on faith that the road they travel will lead to a specific end. They do not know anything in truth by saying their end will justify their methods.

  17. Mike Devx says

    I took a look at Breitbart’s original post in which he published this video, along with another one:
    http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/
     
    In that post, toward the top, Breitbart states near the top:
    In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.

    The full video refutes the statement “you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient”.

    Further down in Breitbart’s post, he provides two paragraphs of detail on her comments.  His inference that this proves she is racist is clear.

    Breitbart made a mistake in not recognizing that he needed to see the full video.  In his post he would have changed its tone and some of its content had he done so.   He could issue an apology.   But as Ymar says in #10 above,
    > Some of the comments I read at Neo-Neocon’s site said that Andrew should apologize and do the full prostratination, because this will “stop the perpetuation of racism by Leftists because it demonstrates we are better than them”. Total Bull, if you ask me.

    I agree. A “full prostatination” to “demonstrate that we are better than them”?  Bull crap indeed: Someone seems to think we need to be perfect angels, which is contrary to human nature and buys into the defeatist game.   Everyone makes mistakes.  Apologize for the mistake and move on.

    And who made the worst mistake?  Breitbart saw the video – he published it.  The NAACP saw the video – and wildly overreacted.  The Obama Administration saw the video – and forced her out.   THEIR mistakes were far, far worse than his.

    Recently Ms. Sherrod said of Breitbart:

    “He knew exactly what effect that would have on not only — he knew what effect that would have on the conservative, racist people he’s dealing with,” Sherrod said. “That’s why I started getting the hate mail. And that’s why I started getting the hate calls.” ,,, ”He got the effect he was looking for,” she said.

    That is as unfair to him as anything he wrote in that original post was to her.  Has she done her due diligence before tarring and feathering him?  No.  Her own broad inference tying “conservative” together with “racist” is equally unfair.  This, and other comments of hers, make it clear she does have racism issues of her own to deal with.

    It’s unfortunate the creeps are crawling out of the woodwork to send her hate mail.  We’re a country of 320 million people and, yes, there are still racists and creeps out there.  There will always be racists.  Um, just take a look at Malcolm Shabazz, why don’t you, Ms. Sherrod, before you assume they’re all conservative?  Hardly the case.

    But Ms. Sherrod’s racism – apparently a belief that most or all conservatives are driven by racism – is garden variety stuff.  Eric Holder, on the other hand, is a far worse racist than she is.  His Department Of Justice is awash with a racism so ugly that any residual deep-held attitudes of Ms. Sherrod’s pale in comparison.  In all my years I’ve never met or heard a white racist do anything so outrageously racist as what Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is currently engaged in.

  18. pst314 says

    “Race in America is poisonous, not because most Americans are racists, but because the Left believes that most Americans are racists.”

    But many leftists know perfectly well that most Americans are not racists. They cynically use the accusation because it is politically useful.
     

  19. says

    <B>The full video refutes the statement “you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient”.</b>

    It doesn’t refute it.

    <B>His inference that this proves she is racist is clear</b>

    And that inference is correct. The video proves she is racist. Unless you think making judgments about people’s self worth based upon the color of their skin is cosmopolitan.

    <B>Breitbart made a mistake in not recognizing that he needed to see the full video</b>

    That’s like saying we needed to fully identify Bin Laden before we blow up where we suspect he is. By the time you wait until the bureaucrats at DC are satisfied that the target is identified, the moment is lost.

    You don’t get a reload chance like at arcade games. You need to order them to fire, now, or else you won’t ever find out if the target location had BIn Laden or not. Breit had to release the video when he did, or else none of us would ever have found out the true nature of the video or of Sherrod. The NAACP would have buried. Unless you think you could have gotten them to release the Full Video by asking them?

    <B>Apologize for the mistake and move on.</b>

    Apologies are in a social context against equals and peers. This is a conflict where people’s lives are at stake. There is no apologizing to the enemy. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

    <B>This, and other comments of hers, make it clear she does have racism issues of her own to deal with.</b>

    Which means the full video proves she is a racist, not the other way around. It exonerates her for the 2 minutes in the excerpt and that’s about it.

    <B>They cynically use the accusation because it is politically useful.</b>

    It also shocks the victim. When secret police conduct long term interrogation of a subject, the guilty ones become calm and subdued after they realize they aren’t getting out of the situation by covering up. The truly innocent ones panic or become hysterical, because they have no other option that would relieve their stress and provide hope the situation can be resolved. This is after 72 hours, with no sleep on the part of the subject or very little sleep. Most people will break around there, or soon after. A week of such may even produce dementia.

    When a person feels fear that they are being hunted and that their past will be outed, they often turn towards aggressive and defensive postures. When a person is innocent and they fear that they will be falsely charged and punished, they tend to have trouble defending themselves in consistent sentences. A person that is guilty has already forseen such circumstances and will have a smooth lie ready to go. A person that is innocent may have issues initially, but their stories will be true and consistent as time goes on. In point of fact, innocent people tend to have the weakest defense of their actions when you first charge and confront them. Cause they have had zero time to think about needing one.

    Malignant narcissists know this SOP and they use it to disarm numerous individuals. It allows them to make bold and specific lies and never be caught, because people are more likely to believe a dramatic and specific lie and the victims are too shocked by the complexity of the lie that they are too busy trying to figure out why it is even being spoken to utter a coherent defense.

    “The NAACP saw the video – and wildly overreacted”

    They had the full video. That’s why they released the full video, because they had it and not anyone else.

Leave a Reply