Shirley Sherrod and the Left's discovery of "Context"

"Context, Context, Context!"  The Left wing news media today is like a child who has discovered a new rattle, and now won't stop shaking it!

As I hinted at the other day in my blog post on this subject, Shirley Sherrod is someone that can't decide what is more important - blacks standing up to whites, or the poor standing up to the rich.  Now it turns out that when you listen to her full speech, the story of her blatant discrimination against a white farmer is told in the context of her "revelation" that actually divisive race politics isn't as important as divisive class warfare.  So what she eventually "learns" is that the blacks and the whites should put their differences aside in order to fight the rich people - even using the phrase "rich versus poor" at one point.  Oh, well, that's much better then...

I will agree that the context adds something to the situation as presented the other day, and I will even go so far as to say the clip we were presented with is quite misleading - but this does not make Shirley Sherrod innocent.  Her discovery that dividing people by race isn't as important as dividing people by class and by wealth isn't exactly a conversion of soul like the alcoholic who discovers he no longer needs drink because he has found Jesus or whatever.  This is simply the replacement of one kind of hate for another.  So, excuse me if I don't cry a river for Shirley Sherrod.

Also, let's remember that Sherrod was fired, not by Fox News (who were actually the first to get her on their news channel on Megyn Kelly's show in order to hear her side of the story), but by the White House, who crapped themselves at the first sign of trouble and threw her under the bus.  It is this that makes this story a bit different.

Context is something we often find lacking in news stories, usually by stories reported by the left-wing media. For instance, Rush Limbaugh was smeared as a racist for calling Obama "Barack the Magic Negro" when he was actually parodying an LA Times article that uses that phrase.  In that case, as in many other Limbaugh stories (even the other day when he called George Steinbrenner a "cracker" only in the context of the New Black Panthers it was Limbaugh who was reported as the bigot) context is all important, and the mainstream media often "forget" it when it suits their agenda.  When the context is revealed, they are barely bothered to correct themselves (unlike what Fox has done, who immediately made an effort to seek context to the clip and to get both sides of the story).  Only with the Sherrod case have the MSM suddenly become interested in the "context" of the situation, and "responsible journalism" - funny that!

This double standard is made clearer by the fact that when Limbaugh, or Beck, or Sarah Palin or any right-winger is falsely accused of something by the mainstream media, their employers or fellow right-wingers usually find the context, present it to the public, and stand by the personality in question.  What is interesting here is how the NAACP and the White House threw this woman under the bus without even asking her for her story!  Even Fox had the courtesy to ask for her side!  With friends like that, who needs enemies?

This story has not, as so many on the left are trying to spin it, been an embarrasment for Fox.  Instead it has been a humiliation for the White House, and shown a glaring double standard in the MSM, who are suddenly concerned with "context", when usually they couldn't give two hoots for context.  Maybe next time they report a smear against a right-winger, they will pause to discover the "context."  I doubt it though...

The NAACP and Diane Abbott

Well, well, well - things aren't going particularly well for the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) this week!  Their accusation that the vastly popular Tea Party movement has "racist elements" has backfired spectacularly, with even Joe "Plugs" Biden throwing them under the bus.

With no real evidence to support them, the NAACP's condemnation has been shown for what it is - a partisan example of race-baiting from a group not afraid to play the race card whenever it suits their liberal needs.  We have seen this plenty of times in the Obama administration, the most notable example was when Obama played the race card against the "stupid" Officer Crowley who dared to arrest Skip Gates (who was dragged away screaming racism).  It turned out that Crowley was 100% right to do what he did, the President was embarrassed and had to concoct the infamous "Beer Summit."

People are sick of the race card being played, and recognise that it is against everything the Civil Rights movement stood for - that one would be judged by one's character not by one's skin colour.  Therefore there has been a significant backlash against the NAACP, and the spotlight has been shone on this movement.  This in turn has led to the discovery of this little clip of a speech by Shirley Sherrod (Georgia Director of Rural Development), who openly admits to discriminating against a farmer because he was white.

It isn't just that she discriminated against a farmer that is offensive - it is how she sees the world.  Not only does she talk about "rich versus poor" as if they are enemies (who implicitly can't change sides), but also talks in a "them versus us" mentality about white people.  So, she talks about sending the "white" farmer to a "white" lawyer as sending him "to his own kind" - those are her words.

This language is disgusting, make no mistake.  It is not just "Ohh well, if a white person said it then they would be accused of racism."  If a white person said this, it would be racist just as it is racist when Shirley Sherrod says it.  This is genuine, real racism, and this woman should be fired and condemned by both the federal government, and by the NAACP.  Yet it taps into a mentality.  This isn't a blog post, this is a speech at an NAACP event that is met by applause and laughter.  How many at the NAACP agree with her?

We are seeing this in Britain too.  Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott has a long history of playing the race card. She has made a big deal of being the only black candidate for Labour, talking about how people could never have imagined a black person becoming President of the USA. Therefore it shows that maybe "People can change here in Britain too."  The implication is clear, Abbott doesn't get in, then it's because Britian is racist.  Sound familiar America?

This baiting goes back all the way to 1996 when she expressed concern at "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" who were unsuitable to be nurses as they "may have never met a black person before" and for saying that "West Indian mothers will go to the wall for the children", a comment which she has been challenged on recently by BBC's Andrew Neil - the clip is here.

It is time on both sides of the Atlantic that we fight this new form of racism.  There are a lot of vested interests who have a lot to gain from keeping the race business open.  Abbott for instance is a left wing nutcase with very few achievements, and must now that playing the race and female card is the only way she has a chance of a sniff at the leadership.  But such behaviour by Abbott and by members of the NAACP is not just offensive, it is damaging to society.  To pit people against one another, whether it be rich versus poor or black versus white is low and shameful, and it is for those of us who want to move past the issue of race to fight against such low tricks.