I started this little ol' blog in large part because I sometimes found myself full of emotion or reaction about a particular story or event, so much so that I wanted to write about it. This is where I find myself today.
As I put fingers to the computer, I'm wondering where to start with this story. Does it start with Andrew Breitbart's wholly unethical
hatchet job of Shirley Sherrod? Well, that
is the crux of the story. But the story is merely, I believe, a response to the recent NAACP
resolution regarding the Tea Party. In fact, Breitbart admitted as much in his post. He is trying desperately to avenge any notion that the Tea Party has racist elements to it. How desperately? This desperately.
He begins his post with a soaring speech on how the Tea Party is not racist and how the Left, the Democrats, the White House, the Easter Bunny, Fidel Castro, and the troll under the bridge are simply out to vilify the cause and moral fiber of the Tea Party. He then posts a video (which to my knowledge he has yet to reveal where he got the video or who he got it from or who edited it) with ominous graphics announcing how this is a federally-appointed employee practicing racism ..
....bom bom bom bommmmmm.
In the video, Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, is seen and heard telling the story of working with a white farmer at some point in her career. It is completely unclear from this two-minute video what the context of this story is, i.e. when did this incident take place, in what role was she helping him, why is she even telling the story, etc. She speaks briefly of the condescending way in which she perceives this white farmer speaking to her (*gasp* white people in the deep South talking condescendingly to black people??!! Unheard of!) despite the fact that she was in a position to help him. She talks of her admitted hesitancy to help this man with her full resources (an honest admission, in my book). She goes on to speak of how she took him to see a white lawyer, 'one of his kind, ya know' she states, to see if this white farmer can be helped. She makes a reference to so many black farmers losing their farms at the time, yet she is still having to work with this white farmer. Again, no context is provided because of the editing down of the full video. She finally concludes (in this tiny, edited portion) that she came to realize that the issue was not about race as much as it was about poverty. Not exactly earth-shattering revelations for anyone under the age of 92 living in the United States. The U.S. has a long, torrid, racist history. Shocking, I know.
But Breitbart would have you believe you are reading the devil's lecture. His breathless narrative reads:
"In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."
So wait, 'nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement' is evidence of racism? Breitbart clearly failed Science 101 and could not pass Remedial Logic. This is not evidence and his conclusions are inane. Perhaps the people in attendance were nodding because they understood the dilemma and conflict that a black woman helping a white man in the Deep South might have been feeling. Perhaps they were were recognizing that, like Shirley, sometimes our
prejudices keep us from initially assessing a situation in the most righteous way. Hell, perhaps they were falling asleep and the nods were actually their heads tipping over. We do not really know. But Breitbart trumpets this snippet as if this is irrefutable evidence of racism. He fails miserably.
First, Breitbart is clearly ignorant on what racism ACTUALLY is. Here, Andrew, is a
definition. A six year-old could look this up, but since you are too lazy, I'll provide you a link. Let's see, does Shirley express a doctrine that black people are superior to whites? Nope, actually quite the opposite. Does she exhibit a policy or system of government that espouses racism? Uh, no. Does she display hate or intolerance for whites? No, she does not. She actually admits to, points out even, her own prejudices (another word Andrew needs to look up.
Here you go, lazy boy).
So, the 'context' that the despicable Breitbart so blatantly tries to peddle, is, in fact, important. Here is the true context. He is playing a game. A desperate game trying to avenge his
wounded exposed delicate Tea Party position. It is a familiar game .. from our childhood. When young children are on the playground and calling each other vile names, they sometimes try to be annoying by saying "I know you are but what am I" every time one child calls him or her a bad name of some sort. It has nothing to do with defending oneself. It has nothing to do with whether the 'bad word' is true or not. It is merely deflection.
That is the context here. On it's surface, it is a silly game that Breitbart is playing. Looking deeper, it is a dangerous game.
One does not prove your beliefs are not racist but calling the accuser racist. There are plenty of examples of racism to be found without trying that tactic. Breitbart has made of name for himself (albeit not a name I would wish for myself) with his ACORN shenanigans and his silly use of dog-whistles. But the puppetmastery of this stunt is so blatantly politically motivated, it is horrifying. It is so clearly done for self-interest and for self-preservation - damn the cost. Everything about it reeks of opportunism. Nothing of it smells of genuineness.
Of course, just as with his ACORN witch hunt, he eventually had to admit that the video was edited. Once the full speech was released, it was abundantly clear that this was a hard-hearted, mean-spirited, falsely-trumped up hatchet job. He responded to accusations of racist elements of his pet political project by trying, and in some measure, succeeding in obfuscating the whole issue of racism. We are all profoundly sensitive to accusations of racism. Most of America cannot have a discussion about race in a non-defensive, non-accusatory, and/or intelligent manner. This entire episode has given us not a 'teachable moment' as some love to profess, but another example of how we do not know how to discuss race. We do not know how to be uncomfortable in the realities of our prejudices, our histories, our past, our present, our innermost anxieties about one another. That is why this game he is playing is so dangerous. It advances NOTHING; it plays into fears; it sends us all to our respective corners to defend our respective ideologies. Breitbart and his tactics are held up by the Right and excoriated by the Left.
In other words, homeostasis maintained. Damn shame.
Today, I am going to focus on one specific thing that relates to parenting and is a personal pet peeve of mine: gender stereotyping. More specifically gender-role stereotyping (which takes me into the area of psychology-isms, so I will leave it at gender stereotyping). I have some time restrictions today (story of my life), so I will keep it brief.
Posts
