I don’t like to focus on what commenters say at blogs. A blog with an open commenting policy should be praised, not punished for the wacky things they allow to be published. So, I focus on these comments at Red State strictly on their own merits.
so why did the left let her go?
Doc Holliday Tuesday, July 20th at 11:18PM EDT (link)
and when have they been fair to us? Were they fair to George Allen? Have they been fair to the Tea Party? Brietbart can’t fire anyone in the Obama Regime.
BTW, what about the angry woman saying the white guy acted superior? Does he now agree he did that, that he was a racist? What about the NAACP crowd that cheered when she made light of her desire to help him less than “one of her own kind”?
Maybe this woman has had a change of heart, but she still did something very wrong and as a representative of the US government. But I think the main point we all should focus on is it is time the race baiters are “discouraged” from using those false attacks. If our side fights back, and get’s some scalps, they might start focusing on real issues.
The commenter was responding on Erick Erikson’s ambivalence about Andrew Breitbart’s conduct, and there’s a lot there that I could comment about, including some factual inaccuracies. But I want to focus on this commenter’s issue with Ms. Sherrod’s talking about sending the farmer to a white lawyer as sending him to one of “his kind.”
I don’t know if you have watched the full video of her speech, but a big part of it revolves around the killing of her father by white men when she was just seventeen years old, and how those men were not punished. You see, she wasn’t who started breaking people into ‘your kind’ and ‘my kind.’ Her father was killed because he was an agitator. He was killed because he was a black man sticking up for black people in the Jim Crow south. He wasn’t the first black man, or even the first relative of Ms. Sherrod’s, to be killed in her county. And no white men were ever held accountable in her experience.
Prior to the murder of her father, she had planned to go north to college and hoped to meet a nice northern man to marry so she would never have to return to the south and the hard work on the farm. But the death of her father made her reconsider and she decided to stay in the south and fight for ‘her kind.’
Her story is about the moment she realized that she had it wrong. She realized that poor white farmers were getting the shaft from more powerful interests, just like she knew was happening to poor black farmers. Her worldview expanded and she began to look at things in economic rather than racial terms. Of course, for this next commenter, that’s not much better.
edintexas Wednesday, July 21st at 8:53AM EDT (link)…
…As for her “conversion” – so she is no longer a racist, but rather a Marxist. And a Marxist who NOW describes turning over a Caucasian farmer to someone of “his own kind”. Well, that certainly doesn’t seem to be too racist, does it?
For a lot of white conservatives today, any talk of ‘your kind’ or ‘my kind’ sounds racist. But they’ve erased the past. Ms. Sherrod can’t erase the past. How do you erase the murder of your father? How do you ignore that ‘your kind’ was killed for being ‘your kind’? It’s white people who treated her that way. They didn’t give her an alternative to seeing the world that way because they imposed that view upon her. And she unlearned it.
But these white conservatives unlearned history. For them, Jim Crow ended long ago and even those who lived through it and suffered mightily are not allowed to complain about it. They’re not allowed to even talk about it. If they do, they’re race-baiters. Of course, that’s only marginally worse than being a Marxist.
